MISTAKES 


or 


AS  SHOWN  BY 

PROF.    SWING,      J.  MONRO  GIBSON,  D.  D., 

W.  H.  RYDER,  D.  D.,     RABBI  WISE, 

BROOKE  HERFORD,  D.  D., 

AND  OTHERS. 


INCLUDING  INGERSOLL'S  LECTURE 

ON  THB 

"MISTAKES  OF  MOSES." 


EDITED   BY 

J.  B.  MCCLURE. 
'I 


CHICAGO: 

RHODES  &  McCLURE,  PUBLISHERS. 
1880. 


Entered  according  to  Act  of  Congress,  in  the  year  1879,  by 

J.  B.  MCCLURK  &  R.  S.  RHODES, 
In  the  Office  of  the  Librarian  of  congress,  at  Washington,  D.  0. 


Stereotyped  and  1  Tin  ted 

HV 

OTTAWAT  &  COMPANT, 


DOIIOHUK    A    llKNNEBKRBT, 

Binders. 


A  religious  faith  at  present  BO  generally  pervades  the 
civilized  world  that  it  seems  almost  amazing  that  any  one 
should  dare  speak  as  Mr.  Ingersoll  does  in  his  several  lec- 
tures about  the  Bible.  It  is  this  singularity,  no  doubt, 
rather  than  intrinsic  worth,  which  gives  any  significance 
that  may  attach  to  his  words.  That  the  Bible  is  in  the 
least  endangered  is  out  of  the  question.  It  is  too  late  now 
for  that.  The  words  herein  compiled  from  good  and  able 
men,  who  have  made  the  great  Book,  in  its  early  language, 
import  and  history,  a  careful  study  for  long  years,  will  show 
how  futile  are  Mr.  Ingersoll's  efforts  in  parading  what  he 
calls  the  "  Mistakes  of  Moses,"  etc.  Indeed,  it  would  seem 
that,  possibly  Mr.  I.  is  guilty  of  a  mistaken  identity,  for  he 
is  severely  accused  of  false  assertions  and  misrepresentations 
concerning  the  real  Moses.  This  reminds  us  of  a  "  mis- 
take" which  was  made  on  a  certain  occasion  by  the  celebra- 
ted Archbishop  of  Dublin,  the  gifted  author  of  the  work  so 
widely  known,  entitled  "  The  Study  of  Words."  lie  was 
not  in  robust  health  at  the  time,  and  for  many  years  had 
been  apprehensive  of  paralysis.  At  a  dinner  in  Dublin, 
given  by  the  Lord  Lieutenant  of  Ireland,  his  grace  sat  on 
the  right  of  his  hostess,  the  Duchess  of  Abercorn.  In  the 

midst  of  the  dinner  the  company  was  startled  by  seeing  the 

(3) 


4  PREFACE. 

Archbishop  rise  from  his  seat,  and  still  more  startled  to  hear 
him  exclaim  in  a  dismal  and  sepulchral  tone,  "  It  has  comet 
it  has  come!" 

"  What  has  come,  your  Grace? "  eagerly  cried  half  a  dozen 
voices  from  different  parts  of  the  table. 

"  What  I  have  been  expecting  for  twenty  years,"  solemnly 
answered  the  archbishop — "  a  stroke  of  paralysis.  I  have 
been  pinching  myself  for  the  last  twenty  minutes,  and  find 
myself  entirely  without  sensation." 

"Pardon  me,  my  dear  archbishop,"  said  the  duchess, 
looking  up  at  him  with  a  somewhat  quizzical  smile — "  par- 
don me  for  contradicting  you,  but  it  ialthat  yvu  have  leen 
pinching!" 

Messrs.  Gibson,  Swing,  Ryder  and  Herford,  of  Chicago, 
and  Rabbi  Wise,  of  Cincinnati,  whose  replies  are  herein 
given,  are  too  well  known  as  scholars  and  divines,  to  require 
any  introduction  to  a  reading  public.  Their  words  are 
wise  and  timely,  and  are  put  on  record  in  this  form  to  show 
the  weakness  of  modern  infidelity  and  the  stability  of  Divine 
Truth. 

J.  B.  McCLURB. 

CHICAGO,  April  22nd,  1879. 


PAGB 

PROF.  SWING'S  REPLY 7 

The  Lawyer  vs.  The  Philosopher — Ingersoll's  Pro- 
fessional Proclivities  in  Making  a  Part  Equal  to 
the  Whole .8 

Seven  Mistakes  of  Moses  Left  Oat! — Injustice  to 
Hebrew  History 10 

Swing  Puts  Himself  in  ingersoll's  Place  and  At- 
tacks the  Seventeenth  Century — How  it  Works  13 

Ingersoll's  Narrowness  Shuts  Out  God,  Heaven  and 
Immortality — Infidel  Dogmatism  ...  15 

In  the  World's  Great  Freedom  of  Choice,  Ingersoll 
is  Counted  Out 18 

DR.  RYDER'S  REPLY 21 

Ingersoll's  Unfairness — Attributes  to  Moses  State- 
ments not  in  the  Bible 22 

His  Temporary  Insanity  occasioned  by  Heavy  Rains 
— Intellectually  Submerged  in  the  Deluge — Dam- 
aging Blunders — Ingersoll  up  the  Wrong  Moun- 
tain   24 

Top-heavy — Too  Broad  a  Structure  reared  on  a  Too 

Narrow  Base 27 

Ingersoll's  Inconsistency  ,         .         .         .         29 

lie  lias  No  Poetry  in  His  Soul;  ergo,  etc.  .  .  31 
Additional  Misrepresentations  ....  32 
Dr.  Ryder  Propounds  a  Question  ....  34 

(5) 


6  CONTENTS. 

PAOH 

Ingersoll  Admits  His  Sad  Need  of  Inspiration    .  35 
Ingersoll's  "Religion  of  Humanity"  All  Right  Ex- 
cept the  Religion 37 

Dr.  Ryder  Tells  a  Little  Story  for  the  sake  of  Illus- 
tration        39 

DR.  HERFORD'S  REPLY 41 

The  Ingersoll  Paradox 43 

Ingersoll's  Exaggerations  and  False  Assertions        .  43 
Dr.  Herford's  Story  of  Moses,  with  an  Apt  Illustra- 
tion— The  Germinal  Power  of  the  Pentateuch   .  46 
The  Mosaic  Religion  of  Humanity          .        .        .49 

THE  JEWISH  RABBI'S  REPLY 53 

DR.  GIBSON'S  REPLY 61 

Ingersoll  Betrays  His  Ignorance  ....  62 
Harmony  of  Science  and  Genesis  .  .  .  .63 
The  Harmony  of  Genesis  and  Science  Not  the 

Result  of  Guess-work,  but  of  Inspiration        .  67 

God 69 

Nature TO 

Man 73 

Woman 73 

Mistakes  Respecting  Labor  and  Death  Corrected    .  75 
The  Deluge  and  its  Difficulties — Not  Universal — 
Ararat  originally  a  District  (alas!  Ingersoll  calls 
it  a  High  Mountain) — Other  Deluges       .        .  70 
Faith  in  Jesus  Christ  the  Essential  Factor       .        .  80 
Candor  vs.   Injustice — Dr.  Gibson's  Pointed  Sum- 
mary           81 

WHAT  DISTINGUISHED  MEN  SAY  OF  TOE  BIBLB       .      85-96 

IHOERSOLL'S  LECTURE, 

Entitled  "TiiE  MISTAKES  OF  MOSES,"        .         .  97 


MISTAKES  OF  INGERSOLL 


A3  SHOWN  BY 


PROF.  SWING, 

W.  II.  RYDER,  D.  D., 

BROOKE  HERFORD,  D.  D., 


J.  MONRO  GIBSON,  D.  D., 
RABBI  WISE, 
AND  OTHERS. 


PROF.  SWING'S  REPLY. 


Tins  discourse  is  not  spoken  regard  ing  the  man,  Robert 
G.  Ingersoll,  but  regarding  the  addresses  which  he  is  deliv- 
ering and  is  otherwise  publishing.  The  man  Ingersoll  is 
said  to  be,  in  his  private  life,  kind,  neighborly,  humane, 
and  in  many  ways  an  example  which  might  be  imitated 
with  great  profit  by  thousands  who  represent  themselves  as 
holding  the  Pagan  or  the  Christian  religion.  But,  were 
this  author  and  lecturer  a  mean,  wicked  man,  I  should  still 
be  bound  to  consider  his  thoughts  apart  from  the  thinker 
just  as  we  deal  with  Bacon's  ideas  apart  from  his  moral 
qualities,  and  the  politics  of  Alexander  Hamilton  apart 
from  the  infirmities  of  his  moral  sentiments.  The  iiitel- 

CO 


8  MISTAKES  OF  INGERSOLL. 

lect  of  such  an  individual  as  the  one  before  ns  is  a  thinking 
machine.  It  makes  a  survey  of  the  religions  landscape. 
Objects  strike  it  that  escape  yon  and  me.  His  eyes  are  not 
those  of  a  preacher,  not  those  of  a  bishop,  nor  those  of  an 
evangelist  like  Mr.  Moody;  not  those  of  a  moralist  like 
Dyniond  or  William  Penn,  nor  those  of  Theodore  Parker 
or  Emerson,  but  they  are  a  vision  purely  his  o\vn,  and  our 
task  is  limited  to  the  inquiry  what  this  peculiar  sense  dis- 
covers in  our  wide  and  varied  world. 

The   Lawyer  vs.  The  Philosopher — Ingersoll's  Professional 
Proclivities  in  Making  a  Part  equal   to  the  "Whole  ! 

We  perceive  at  once  that  these  addresses  do  not  offer  us 
any  system  of  philosophy  for  woman,  or  child,  or  State,  and 
therefore  they  cannot  aspire  to  be  any  valuable  Mentor  to 
tell  each  young  Telemachus  how  to  live.  They  are  the 
speeches  of  a  lawyer  retained  by  one  client  of  a  large  case. 
Men  trained  in  a  profession  come  by  degrees  into  the  pro- 
fession's channel,  and  flow  only  in  the  one  direction,  and  al- 
ways between  the  same  banks.  The  master  of  a  learned 
profession  at  last  becomes  its  slave.  lie  who  follows  faith- 
fully any  calling  wears  at  last  a  soul  of  that  calling's  shape. 
You  remember  the  death  scene  of  the  poor  old  schoolmas- 
ter, lie  had  assembled  the  boys  and  girls  in  the  winter 
mornings  and  hud  dismissed  them  winter  evenings  after 
sundown,  and  had  done  this  for  fifty  long  years.  One  win- 
ter Monday  lie  did  not  appear.  Death  had  struck  his  old 
and  feeble  pulse;  but,  dying,  his  mind  followed  its  beauti- 
ful but  narrow  river-bed,  and  his  last  words  were:  "It  is 
growing  d:irk — the  school  is  dismissed — let  the  girls  pass 
out  first."  Very  rarely  docs  the  man  in  the  pulpit,  or  at 
the  bur,  or  in  statesmanship,  escape  this  molding  hand  of 
Lis  pursuit.  Wo  are  all  clay  iu  the  hands  of  that  potter 


PROF.  SWING'S  REPLY.  & 

which  is  called  a  pursuit.  A  pursuit  is  seldom  an  ocean  of 
water;  it  is  more  commonly  a  canal.  But  if  there  be  a 
class  of  men  more  modified  than  others  in  language  and 
forms  of  speech,  the  lawyers  compose  such  a  class,  for  it  ia 
never  their  business  to  present  both  sides.  It  is  their  espe- 
cial duty  BO  to  arrange  a  part  of  the  facts  as  that  they  shall 
seem  to  be  the  whole  facts,  and  next  to  their  power  of  pre- 
senting a  cause  mast  come  their  power  to  conceal  all  aspects 
unfavorable  to  their  purpose.  A  philosopher  must  see  and 
set  forth  at  once  both  sides  of  all  questions,  but  a  lawyer 
must  learn  to  see  the  one  side  of  a  case,  for  there  is  another 
man  expressly  employed  to  see  the  reverse  of  the  shield. 
But  few  of  us  are  philosophers.  "When  we  wish  to  exhibit 
something,  we  instantly  cut  off  all  light  except  that  which 
will  fall  upon  our  goods.  If  we  are  to  display  only  a  yard 
of  silk,  we  will  veil  the  sun  and  move  about  to  find  the 
right  position,  and  then  light  a  little  more  gas,  that  the 
fields,  and  hills,  and  heavens  may  all  withdraw,  and  permit 
us  to  see  the  fold  of  a  bride's  dress.  Thus  all  the  profes- 
sions, honored  by  being  called  learned,  do  more  or  less  cut 
off  the  light  from  all  things  except  the  fabric  that  is  being- 
unfolded  by  their  skillful  fingers. 

Men  of  intense  emotional  power  like  Mr.  Ingersoll,  and 
men  who,  like  him,  have  hearts  as  full  of  colors  as  a  paint- 
er's shop,  are  wont,  beyond  common,  to  pour  their  passion- 
upon  one  object  rather  than  diffuse  it  all  over  the  world. 
These  can  awaken,  and  entertain,  and  shake,  and  unsettle, 
but  then,  after  all  is  over,  we  all  must  seek  for  final  guides 
men  who  are  calmer  and  \yho  spread  gentler  tints  with  their 
brush.  I  am,  therefore,  of  the  opinion  that  none  of  us  \ 
should  follow  anyone  man,  but  rather  all  men;  should  seek 
that  general  impression,  that  wide-reaching  common-sense, 
which  knows  little  of  ecstacy  and  little  of  despairj  These 


10  MISTAKES  OF  INGERSOLL. 

^"Addresses"  under  notice  are  wonderful  concentrations  of 
wit,  and  fun,  and  tears,  and  logic,  but  concentrations  upon 
minor  points.  They  are  severe  upon  a  little  group  of  men, 
ttpon  literalists  and  old  Popes,  and  old  monks,  but  they  do 
not  weigh  and  mo;isure  fully  the  religion  of  such  a  being  as 
Jesus  Christ,  nor  touch  the  ideas  and  actions  of  the  human 
race  away  from  these  fading  forms  of  human  nature. 


huii 
W 


Seven  Mistakes  of  Moses  Left  out! —  Injustice  to  Hebrew 

History. 

These  addresses  do  injustice  to  the  Hebrew  history.  A 
lawyer  has  a  right  to  be  one-sided  and  narrow  when  he  is 
presenting  the  cause  of  his  client,  but  when  he  is  addressing 
a  public  upon  a  religious,  or  political,  or  social  question, 
narrowness  in  his  discourse  must  be  considered  an  infirmity, 
or  else  an  act  of  injustice.  These  speeches  betray  either 
unconscious  narrowness  or  willful  injustice.  But  Mr.  Inger- 
Boll  is  the  embodiment  of  sincerity,  according  to  those  who 
enjoy  his  acquaintance,  and  therefore  we  must  conclude 
that  the  cast  of  his  mind  is  such  that  it  is  led  hither  and 
thither  by  that  narrowness  which  belongs  no  more  to  a  high 
Calvinist  than  to  a  high  infidel.  If  tho  lecture  upon 
"Moses"  had  been  more  thoughtful,  it  would  have  con- 
fessed that  there  were  several  forms  of  the  man  "  Moses," — 
the  historic"  Moses,"  the  Hebrew  "  Moses,"  and  the  Calvin- 
istic  "  Moses; "  and  then,  after  this  concession,  he  might  have 
(assailed  the  "  Calvinistic  Moses."  .... 
But  if  the  addresses  had  been  broad,  and  spoken  for  that 
larger  audience  called  humanity,  they  would  have  asked  us 
to  mark  the  mistakes  of  the  Moses  of  Hebrew  times  and  of 
common  history.  But  they  did  not  dream  of  this.  Stand- 
ing in  the  presence  of  one  of  the  grandest  figures  of 


PROF.  SWING'S  REPLY.  11 

tian  and  Hebrew  antiquity,  Mr.  Ingersoll  failed  to  see  this  I 
personage,  arid  permitted  nothing  to  come  upon  his  field  of 
vision  except  those  sixteenth  century  theologians  who  dis-  i 
torted  alike  the  mission  of  Moses  and  of  Christ,  and  even 
of  the  Almighty.  To  set  forth  the  mistakes  of  the  historic  j 
"  Moses "  would  not  be  any  easy  task.  I  One  doing  this 
would  be  compelled  to  ask  us  to  mark  the  blunders  of  a 
leader  who  planned  freedom  for  slaves;  who  bore  complain- 
ings from  an  ignorant  people  until  he  won  the  fame  of  unu- 
sual meekness,  one  who  did  in  reality  what  infidels  only 
have  dreamed  of  doing — living  and  dying  for  the  people; 
the  mistakes  of  one  whose  ten  laws  are  still  the  fundamental 
ideas  of  a  State,  of  one  who  organized  a  nation  which  lived 
and  flourished  for  1,500  years;  the  mistakes  of  one  who 
divested  the  idea  of  God  of  bestiality  and  began  to  clothe  it 
with  the  notions  of  wisdom  and  justice,  and  even  tenderness; 
the  follies  of  one  who  established  industry  and  education, 
and  a  higher  form  of  religion,  and  gave  the  nation  holding 
these  virtues  such  an  impulse  that  in  the  hour  of  dissolving 
it  produced  a  Jesus  Christ  and  the  twelve  Apostles;  and 
thus  did  more  in  its  death  than  Atheism  could  achieve  in  all 
the  eons  of  geology.  Seven  mistakes  of  Moses  left  out!-*"* 

There  is,  it  is  true,  a  time  and  a  place  for  irony,  but  after 
it  has  done  its  work  amid  the  accidental  of  a  time  or  a  place, 
there  remains  yet  much  to  be  studied  by  the  sober  intellect 
and  loved  by  the  heart  which  really  cares  for  the  useful  and 
the  true.  It  is  essentially  a  small  matter  that  some  poetic 
mind,  some  Froissart  or  some  Herodotus,  came  along  per- 
haps after  the  reigns  of  David  and  Solomon,  and  gathered  up 
all  the  truths  of  old  Hebrew  tradition,  and  all  the  legends, 
too,  and  wove  them  together,  for  out  of  such  entanglements 
the  essential  ideas  generally  rise  up  just  as  noble  pine  trees 
at  last  rise  up  above  the  brambles  and  thickets  at  their  base, 


12  MISTAKES  OF  INGERSOLL. 

and  evermore  stand  in  the  full  presence  of  rain,  and  air,  and 
eun.  Above  the  brambles  and  thorn  of  legend,  at  which 
the  narrow  eye  may  laugh,  there  rises  up  from  the  Mosaic 
soil  a  growth  of  moral  truth  that  catches  at  last  full  sun- 
shine and  full  breeze;  a  growth  that  will  long  make  a  good 
shadow  for  the  graves  of  Christian  and  intidel  beneath. 
The  errors  of  legend  are  so  unimportant  that  even  a  Divine 
Book  may  carry  them. 

It  will  thus  appear  that  the  method  of  the  addresses  is 
very  defective.  It  is  not  a  wide  survey  of  a  two-thousand- 
year  period  in  human  civilization,  a  period  when  the  He- 
brews were  making  imperishable  the  good  of  the  Egyptians 
who  were  dying  from  vices  and  despotism,  but  is  only  the 
ramble  of  a  satirist  having  a  sharp  eye  for  defects  and  a  most 
ready  tongue.  All  the  by-gone  periods  may  be  passed  over 
in  two  manners.  We  may  go  forth  for  our  laughter  or  foi 
our  pensiveness  and  wisdom.  Juvenal  saw  old  Rome  fuU 
of  dissolute  men  and  women.  Virgil  saw  it  full  of  litera- 
ture. Tacitus  found  it  not  destitute  of  patriots  and  heroes; 
and  when  Juvenal  found  the  husbands  all  debauchees,  and 
the  wives  all  hypocrites,  there  the  most  calm  and  elegant 
historians  found  the  most  excellent  Agricola,  and  found  a 
wife  of  spotless  fame  in  the  daughter  Domitia.  Thus  in 
the  very  generations  in  which  the  lampoons  of  Juvenal 
found  only  vice,  behold  we  see  beauty  and  virtue  in  full 
bloom  around  the  homes  of  Tacitus,  and  Agricola,  and 
Pliny.  Thus  all  the  fields  of  human  thought  lie  open  to 
the  invasion  of  those  who  wish  to  mock,  and  of  those  who 
wish  to  admire.  And  beyond  doubt  when  Mr.  Ingersoll 
shall  have  uttered  his  last  thought  over  the  Mistakes  of 
Moses,  some  other  form  of  intellect  could  glean  in  the  same 
field,  and  leave  covered  with  the  truths  of  Moses,  a  nobler 
and  larger  tablet 


PROF.  SWING'S  REPLY.    •  18 

Swing  Puts  Himself  in  Ingersoll's  Place  and  Attacks  the 
Seventeenth  Century. — How  it  "Works ! 

/^Permit  me  now,  in  imitation  of  the  style  of  these  addresses, 
to  ask  you  to  look  at  the  seventeenth  century:  Why,  it  all 
drips  in  blood!  Horror  upon  horrors!  The  King  of  Persia 
put  to  death  some  of  the  Royal  family  and  put  out  the  eyes 
of  all  the  rest — even  the  eyes  of  infants.  Russia  begins  her 
cruel  oppression  of  Poland.  Prussia,  the  hope  of  Europe,, 
is  desolated  by  war,  which  never  lifted  its  black  cloud  for 
thirty  years.  In  this  wretched  century  came  the  massacre 
of  Prague  and  the  forcible  banishment  of  30,000  Protestant 
families.  Allowing  five  persons  to  a  family,  it  will  thus  ap- 
pear that  150,000  were  driven  from  their  homes  and  country. 
Further  south,  in  France,  a  few  years  before,  700,000  Pro- 
testants had  been  murdered  in  twenty-four  hours.  After- 
ward came  the  licentious  court  of  Louis  XIY.;  while  over 
in  England  noble  men  and  women  were  being  beheaded  or 
otherwise  slain  in  dreadful  numbers.  The  beautiful  Queen 
Mary  is  beheaded  just  as  the  century  begins,  and  Essex  is 
beheaded  in  its  full  opening.  And  in  its  close  France  re- 
enters  the  scene,  revokes  the  edict  of  Nantes,  and  sends  into 
exile  800,000  of  her  best  citizens. 

Thus  dragged  along  the  seventeenth  century,  as  it  would 
seem,  bleeding,  and  weeping,  and  gasping  in  perpetual 
dying.  What  a  picture!  Amazing  indeed,  but  narrow  and 
false!  I  have  been  thinking  only  of  the  "mistakes"  of  a 
time.  Just  look  at  that  century  again  with  a  wider  survey 
and  a  happier  heart,  and  lo!  we  see  in  it  a  matchless  line 
of  immortal  worthies.  There  flourished  Gustavus,  laying 
the  foundations  of  our  liberty;  there  lived  Grotius,  writing 
down  the  holiest  principles  of  duty ;  there  we  see  Galileo 
inventing  the  telescope,  and  beholding  the  starry  sky;  there 


14  MISTAKES  OF  INGERSOLL. 

sits  Kepler  finding  the  highest  laws  of  astronomy;  near 
these  are  the  French  preachers,  Bossuet,  Fenelon,  and  Mas- 
silon,  whose  fame  has  not  been  equaled ;  there,  too,  Pascal 
and  Corneille.  But  this  is  not  all.  It  is  not  one-third  the 
splendor  of  that  one  epoch,  for,  cross  the  Channel,  and 
behold  you  meet  Shakspeare,  and  Lord  Bacon,  and  Milton, 
and  Locke,  and  while  these  divine  minds  are  composing 
their  books,  Cromwell  is  overthrowing  despots,  and  a 
Republic  springs  up  as  by  enchantment.  Thus  the  seven- 
teenth century,  which  awhile  ago  seemed  only  a  period  that 
a  kind  heart  might  wish  stricken  from  history,  now  comes 
back  to  us  as  the  sublime  dawn  of  poetry,  and  science,  and 
eloquence,  and  liberty.  ^ 

The  truth  is  we  must  move  through  the  present  and  the 
past  with  both  eyes  wide  open,  and  with  a  mind  willing  to 
know  all  and  to  draw  a  conclusion  from  the  whole  combined 
cloud  of  witnesses.  The  author  of  the  addresses  does  not 
do  this.  He  does  not  make  a  wide  survey  nor  draw  conclu- 
sions from  widely  scattered  facts;  and  hence,  after  he  has 
spoken  about  the  horrors  of  the  Mosaic  age,  or  of  the  church 
there  remains  that  age  or  that  church  emptying  rich  treas- 
ures into  the  general  civilization,  purifying  the  barbarous 
ages,  awaking  the  intellect,  stimulating  the  arts,  inspiring 
good  works,  elevating  the  life  of  the  living,  by  setting  before 
man  a  God  and  a  future  existence.  Our  Christianity  has  a 
Hebrew  origin.  The  sermon  on  the  Mount  was  begun  by 
Moses. 

The  eloquence  of  Mr.  Ingersoll  is  much  like  the  art  of 
Hogarth  or  John  Leech, — an  acute,  and  witty,  and  interest- 
ing art,  but  very  limited  in  its  range.  Hogarth  was  with- 
out a  rival  in  his  ability  to  picture  the  "  mistakes"  of  mar- 
riage, and  of  a  "  Rake's  Progress,"  the  peculiarity  of  "  Beer 
Lane"  and  "  Gin  Lane";  and  his  art  was  legitimate  in  its 


PROF.  SWING'S  REPLY.  15 

field,  but  its  field  was  narrow,  and  took  no  notice  of  the 
eternal  beauty  of  things  as  painted  by  Rubens  or  Raphael. 
/After  Hogarth  had  said  all  he  could  see  and  believe  about 
marriage,  there  stood  the  holy  relation  in  its  historic  great- 
ness, tilling  millions  of  homes  with  its  peace  and  friend- 
ship, notwithstanding  the  mirth-provoking  pencil.  Thus 
the  ideas  of  "Moses,"  and  "  Church,"  and  "Heaven,"  and 

God"  lie  before  Mr.  Ingersoll  to  be  pictured  by  his  skill- 
ful derision,  but  after  the  artist  has  drawn  his  little  Puritanic 
Hebrew  and  his  absurd  Heaven,  and  has  painted  his  little 
gods,  and  has  limned  his  own  Papal  Heaven  and  Hell, 
another  scene  opens  and  there  untarnished  are  the  deep 
things  of  right  and  wrong,' the  immortal  hopes  of  man,  and 
[a  Heavenly  Father  which  cannot  be  placed  upon  a  jester's 
janvas. 

John  Leech  found  the  weak  points  in  all  English  high 
and  low  life.  The  fashions,  and  sports,  and  entertainments, 
and  the  current  politics,  underwent  for  a  generation  the  tor- 
ture of  his  pictures,  his  sketches,  his  cartoons,  but  the 
moment  the  laugh  had  ended,  the  homes  of  England,  the 
happy  social  life  of  rich  and  poor,  the  learning  and  wisdom 
of  her  statesmen  were  back  in  their  place  just  as  the  sun  is 
in  his  place  after  a  noisy  thunderstorm  has  passed  by. 

Ingersoll's  Narrowness  Shuts  out  God,  Heaven  and  Immor- 
tality— Infidel   Dogmatism. 

This  narrowness  of  survey  which  marks  Mr.  Ingersoll's 
estimate  of  the  Hebrew  period  and  of  the  human  Church, 
follows  him  in  his  thoughts  about  another  life  and  the  exist- 

o 

ence  of  God.  He  denies  that  any  regard  whatever  should 
be  paid  to  a  second  life.  Heaven  deserves  no  consider- 
ation at  our  hands.  He  says  in  his  lecture  on  the  Gods: 
"  Reason,  observation  and  experience  have  taught  us 

2 


16  MISTAKES  OF  INGERSOLL. 

that  happiness  is  the  only  good ;  that  the  time  to  be  happy 
is  now,  and  the  way  to  be  happy  is  to  make  others  so.  This 
is  enough  for  us.  In  this  belief  we  are  content  to  live  and 
die."  Such  assertions  as  these  no  broadly-reaching  mind 
could  make,  for  the  broad  mind,  not  knowing  but  that  there 
may  be  a  second  life,  having  no  positive  information  on  that 
point,  is  bound  to  admit  all  that  uncertainty,  and  that  hope 
is  a  most  lawful  element  in  that  strange  mingling  which 
makes  up  the  soul.  As  Mr.  Ingersoll  does  not  know  whence 
/  man  came,  so  he  knows  not  whither  he  goes,  and  therefore 
|  he  must  himself  stand  and  permit  others  to  stand  in  the 
presence  of  death  as  in  the  presence  of  a  great  mystery  that, 
at  least,  should  silence  all  dogmatism  of  priest  or  infidel. 
The  logic  of  the  addresses  may  be  fitted  for  the  common 
jury,  but  they  are  too  rude  for  man  who  is  weeping  his 
way  along  between  birth  and  death. 

In  some  better  hour  the  lawyer  forgets  his  petit  jury  and 
addresses  the  human  soul.  On  the  title  page  of  a  recent 
volume  he  says  in  substance  that:  "  The  dream  of  immor- 
tal life  has  always  existed  in  the  heart  of  man,  and  will 
remain  there  in  all  its  matchless  charms,  born  not  of  any 
book  or  creed,  but  out  of  human  affection;"  and  being  not 
born  of  reason  and  sense,  he  can  but  reject  its  hope;  he  is 
personally  above  being  molded  in  thought,  or  action,  by 
such  a  fable  of  the  heart.  In  calling  such  a  dream  a  fable, 
he  is  guilty  of  that  very  dogmatism  which  he  so  hates  in 
Calvin  and  Edwards,  for  if  Calvin  was  too  certain  that  he 
knew  God's  will,  Mr.  Ingersoll  is  too  certain  that  he  knows 
God  not  to  exist.  It  often  happens  that  the  dogmatism 
(of  the  bigot  must  await  its  exact  parallel  in  the  dogmatism 
/of  the  atheist.  The  ideas  of  a  future  life  and  a  God  are 
thus  in  these  addresses  rudely  set  aside  as  though  this 
author  had  shown  the  real  origin  and  destiny  of  the  Uni- 
verse, and  had  found  out  the  secret  of  the  grave. 


PROF.  SWING'S  REPLY.  11 

He  would  pay  no  attention  to  the  idea  of  God.  He  would 
not  be  guilty  of  any  worship  in  this  life.  He  says:  "If 
by  any  possibility  the  existence  of  a  power  superior  to  and 
independent  of  nature  shall  be  demonstrated,  there  will  be 
time  enough  to  kneel.  Until  then  let  us  stand  erect." 

In  such  language  we  find  only  a  perfect  overthrow  of  the\ 
method  of  the  human  soul;  for  the  soul  has  never  dared  | 
wait  for  any  such  certainty  in  any  of  the  paths  before  it.    It 
has  always  been  compelled  to  build  up  before  itself  the 
largest  possible  motives  and  hopes,  and  then  live  for  them 
and  abide  the  consequences.     It  is  wonderful  that  a  man 
who  will  pluck  a  violet  and  draw  delight  from  its  tender 
color  and  still  more  delicate  perfume,  will  sternly  command 
the  human  race  not  to  hold  in  its  hands  any  flower  of  im- 
mortality, lest  by  chance  its  leaves  may  at  last  wither.     If 
this  idea  of  a  future  life  should  at  last  fail,  which  seems  im- 
possible, the  human  heart  will  be  all  the  purer  and  happier  \ 
from  having  held  all  through  these  years  a  lily  so  sweet  and/ 
eo  white. 

Loo-ic  cannot  make  such  short  work  of  the  religious  sen- 

o  o 

timents.  Mr.  Ingersoll  says:  "If  you  can  ever  find  a  God, 
just  let  me  know,  and  I  shall  kneel.  Until  then  I  shall 
stand  erect."  What  injustice  to  that  delicate  form  of  rea- 
son, which  has  moved  the  world  for  perhaps  10,000  years  I 
We  do  not  propose  to  find  God  or  a  future  life.  What  the/ 
world  has  found  long  since  is  the  deep  hope  in  a  God,  and 
the  measureless  hope  that  the  dying  loved  ones  of  this  world' 
will  meet  in  a  land  that  is  better.  Nobody  has  come  to  the 
human  race  to  let  it  know  that  a  God  has  been  found,  but 
many  have  come  to  it  saying:  "My  dear  children,  let  us 
trust  that  all  this  matchless  universe  came  from  a  Creator, 
and  that  from  him  we  also  came."  So  many  and  so  holy 
were  these  voices,  and  so  responsive  was  the  heart,  that  upon 


18  MISTAKES  OF  INGERSOLL. 

this  trust  the  living  and  the  dying  have  knelt  and  have  told 
their  longings  to  the  Invisible.  The  human  race  has  not 
been  haughty.  It  has  been  willing  to  kneel.  Its  heart  has 
never  been  stone,  nor  its  knees  brass.  It  lias  stood  erect  in 
battle  where  liberty  was  to  be  won ;  it  has  been  as  erect  as  an 
infidel  when  a  bosom  was  to  be  bared  for  arrows  or  bullets, 
or  when  the  neck  was  to  be  unclothed  for  the  fatal  ax,  but 
in  moments  of  hope  and  longing  it  has  bent  willingly  in 
hope  and  prayer.  The  advice  of  the  Addresses  not  to  kneel 
until  you  have  reached  and  handled  the  Creator,  is  advice 
that  civilization  has  always  spurned,  for  it  lias  woven  all  its 
gorgeous  fabrics  out  of  delicate  probabilities, — gossamer 
threads  spun  by  the  heart.  Fame,  and  learning,  and  art, 
and  happiness  are  all  simple  possibilities  before  each  youth. 
He  does  not  dare  say,  Make  me  sure  of  results,  and  I  will 
gird  myself  for  the  present.  He  casts  himself  upon  the  bet- 
ter of  two  possibilities,  and  is  borne  along  toward  an  un- 
known end.  Thus  has  the  human  race  dealt  with  the  inti- 
mations of  religion.  It  has  cast  itself  upon  the  better  hope, 
and,  being  at  perfect  liberty  to  espouse  Atheism,  has  always 
repudiated  it  as  being  a  paralysis  of  the  soul,  and  a  perfect 
reversal  of  the  common  logic  of  society. 

In  the  World's  Great  Freedom  of  Choice,  Ingersoll  is  Coun- 
ted out ! 

The  world  has  always  been  perfectly  free  to  use  the  form 
of  reasoning  which  Mr.  Ingersoll  suggests.  No  "Westmin- 
ster Assembly,  no  Calvin  compelled  the,  human  family 
from  Old  Egypt  to  Greece  to  think  the  universe  had  a 
Creator.  The  world  has  always  been  free  to  suppose  that 
such  seasons  as  day  and  night  and  spring  and  summer,  such 
creatures  as  the  nightingale  and  man,  such  a  star  as  the  sun, 
all  came  from  mud  and  water  and  fire,  mingling  of  their 


PROF.  SWING'S  REPLY.  19 

own  accord ;  but  the  world  lias  had  no  wide  use  for  such 
conclusions.  Of  its  own  free  choice,  it  has  avoided  Atheism, 
and  has  never  made  up  anywhere  a  civilization  without  dis- 
carding the  idea  of  waiting  for  a  demonstration,  and  with- 
out espousing  the  idea  that  all  noble  society  reposes  upon 
lofty  hopes.  Out  of  beautiful  possibilities  the  soul's  gar- 
ments are  woven. 

It  thus  appears  that  the  Addresses  are  defective  as  guides 
for  any  man's  life  or  death.  They  constitute  a  bill  of  ex- 
ceptions against  certain  hard  rulings  in  some  local  and  igno- 
rant courts,  but  as  pleadings  in  the  great  tribunal  where  the 
whole  human  family  stands  assembled,  to  get  the  wisest 
decisions  about  duty  and  happiness,  and  the  possibility  of 
there  being  a  God  and  a  second  life,  the  possible  value  of  a 
hope  for  the  dying — they  each  and  all  fall  far  short.  They 
see  only  the  religion  of  some  fanatic,  and  think  it  the  religion 
of  Jesus  or  of  mankind.  They  see  a  God  damning  honest 
men,  and  conclude  that  is  what  is  meant  by  Jehovah.  They 
see  a  Heaven  with  some  little  sect  in  the  midst  of  it,  and 
speak  as  though  they  were  what  is  meant  by  the  immortality 
of  man.  They  note  the  follies  of  the  Puritans  and  Papists, 
and  infer  that  if  there  were  no  religion  in  the  world,  there  v  \ 
would  be  no  bad  judgment  or  bad  passions.  They  fail,  too, 
to  mark  the  delicacy  of  man's  practical  logic,  which  is  not 
iron-like,  waiting  for  the  absolute  end  of  all  doubt,  but  which 
is  bending  and  hopeful,  and  stands  ready  forever  to  found 
immense  motives,  and  society,  and  church,  and  homes  upon 
the  greater  and  better  of  two  probabilities  that  lie  within  this 
world  of  cloud.  They  assert  the  adequacy  of  earthly  happi- 
ness as  an  end  of  being,  and  fail  to  mark  that  earthly  hap- 
piness has  always  depended  upon  high  morals,  and  father, 
and  mother,  and  child,  and  social  life,  and  all  mental  de- 
velopment have  found  their  full  meaning,  until  a  warm  and 


20  MISTAKES  OF  1NGERSOLL. 

broad  religion  has  shed  its  cheering  light.  The  human  race 
cannot  find  its  supreme  good  in  having  a  few  acres  of  ground, 
and  in  seeing  the  grass  grow,  and  in  hearing  the  birds  sing. 
These  make  some  days  delightful  indeed,  but  man,  with  his 
retinue  of  art,  and  statesmanship,  and  morals,  and  tempta- 
tions, and  virtues,  and  joys,  and  sorrows,  and  partings,  and 
death,  demands  the  assumption  of  a  God,  and  the  expecta- 
tions of  a  resurrection  from  the  dust.  Under  such  a  temple 
as  society,  the  foundation  must  be  deep. 

To  those  who  read  or  hear  these  addresses  of  Mr.  Inger- 
soll,  let  me  say :  Hear  them,  read  them  if  you  wish,  for  they 
will  show  you  what  a  sad  caricature  of  Christianity  was  that 
which  came  down  to  us  from  the  Dark  Ages;  but,  having 
thus  been  taught  by  an  enemy,  then  dismiss  the  laughter, 
and  look  at  religion  in  the  widest  forms  of  its  doctrine  and 
experience.  We  are  now  warned  daily  not  to  follow  parti- 
sans in  politics,  because  they  will  eclipse  a  country  by  a 
little  chair  in  office — they  will  make  a  village  outweigh  a 
continent.  These  addresses  of  a  talented  lawyer  warn  us 
equally  against  trusting  the  partisans  in  religion — the  dim- 
eyed  zeal  which  makes  a  Deity  as  small  as  their  own  hearts, 
a  Bible  as  cold  and  as  hard  as  adamant;  but  now,  having 
been  taught  to  shun  partisans  in  politics  and  in  Christi- 
anity, let  us  learn  to  resist  one  more  form  of  partisan — the 
'partisan  of  an  atheism  and  a  hopeless  grave.  Let  us  at 
times  laugh  with  him,  let  us  admire  his  acuteness,  let  us 
confess  the  honesty  of  his  life,  but  for  our  guides  or  ideas 
in  the  world  spiritual  let  us  seek  some  mountain  of  thought 
where  the  survey  is  broader,  and  tenderer,  and  more  just, 
from  which  height  no  good  lies  concealed;  but  looking  from 
which  we  can  see  the  great  landscape  of  the  soul,  some  of 
it  bathed  in  light,  some  of  it  lying  in  shadow,  but  all  of  it 
instructive  and  full  of  impressiveness. 


DR.  RYDER'S  REPLY. 


DR   BTDEE'S  EEPLT. 


IN  the  commencement  of  this  review  of  Mr.  Ingersoll's 
lecture  upon  "  The  Mistakes  of  Moses,"  I  wish  two  things 
distinctly  understood:  First,  that  my  controversy  is  not 
with  the  man,  but  with  his  address;  and,  second,  that  he 
has  the  same  right  to  advocate  his  views  as  I  have  to  advo- 
cate mine.  On  the  question  of  religious  liberty  we  are  as 
one. 

Furthermore,  I  do  not  wonder  that  certain  minds,  having 
passed  through  peculiar  experiences,  become  thoroughly 
disgusted  with  particular  forms  of  theological  thought.  My 
only  surprise  is  that  more  are  not.  Such  material  ideas  of 
the  Deity  as  are  sometimes  put  forth  in  the  name  of  Chris- 
tianity; such  offensive  liberalizing  as  is  sometimes  applied 
to  the  future  life,  and  such  thoroughly  untenable  positions 
as  are  sometimes  taken  as  to  what  the  Scriptures  actually 
are,  has  long  been  a  fruitful  cause  of  infidelity,  and  will 
continue  to  be  so  as  long  as  they  receive  the  indorsement  of 
any  branch  of  the  Christian  Church. 

But  intensity  of  conviction  may  degenerate  into  preju- 
dice, and  this  prejudice  practically  unfits  one  to  discuss  the 
subject  to  which  it  relates.  From  what  the  distinguished 
lecturer  says  of  himself,  of  his  determination  in  every  ad- 
dress he  makes,  no  matter  what  the  topic,  to  denounce  cer- 
tain views,  and  from  the  specimen  of  his  work  now  brought 


22  MISTAKES  OF  INGERSOLL. 

under  review,  I  conclude  that  Col.  Ingersoll  occupies  just 
this  position. 

While,  t'ien,  the  right  to  speak  one's  honest  thought  is 
thus  frankly  conceded,  and  the  provocation  to  employ  strong 
language  in  reference  to  certain  theological  opinions  is  also 
conceded,  it  will  be  admitted  by  all  candid  minds  that  cer- 
tain subjects  from  their  very  nature,  and  from  interest  which 
they  involve,  are  to  be  treated  with  seriousness  and  tkirness. 
If  not  so  treated,  the  influence  of  the  discussion  is  almost 
certain  to  be  harmful.  The  lecture  under  notice,  though 
nominally  on  the  errors  of  a  particular  character  in  the  Old 
Testament,  is  virtually  an  assault  upon  all  revealed  religion, 
and  especially  that  contained  in  the  Bible. 

Ingersoll's  Unfairness — Attributes  to  Moses  Statements 
not  in  the   Bible. 

Now,  my  first  position  is  this:  "Whoever  publicly  attacks 
the  sacred  books  of  the  Christian  world,  and  attempts  to 
destroy  faith  in  them,  should  treat  the  subject  fairly.  I  re- 
gret to  say  that  the  lecture  does  not  seem  to  me  so  to  treat 
its  great  theme,  but  is,  on  the  contrary,  a  conspicuous  illus- 
tration of  prejudice  and  unfairness.  No  small  portion  of 
the  lecture  is  unworthy  a  reply.  There  is  nothing  to  reply 
to.  Of  fair  argument  there  is  a  lamentable  lack, — no  incon- 
siderable portion  of  the  time  seems  to  have  been  spent  in 
knocking  over  a  man  of  straw  of  his  own  manufacture.  If 
his  lecture  be  regarded  simply  as  an  entertainment,  it  is  a 
success,  for  the  Colonel  knows  how  to  amuse  an  audience  as 
well  as  the  best;  but  if  it  were  intended  to  be  a  fair  and 
able  discussion  of  an  important  subject,  it  is  not  simply  a 
failure,  but  a  failure  so  obvious  as  to  leave  no  room  for  any 
other  opinion.  In  proof  of  my  statement  that  the  lecture 
does  not  treat  the  topic  which  it  professes  to  discuss  fairly, 
I  offer  these  specimens  as  evidence: 


DR.  RYDER'S  REPLY.  23 

The  first  specimen  is:  Attributing  to  Moses  language 
and  statements  not  to  be  found  in  any  of  his  writings. 
Speaking  of  Moses,  he  says :  "  The  gentleman  who  wrote  it 
(Genesis)  begins  by  telling  us  that  God  made  it  (the  world) 
out  of  nothing."  And  then  he  proceeds  to  ridicule  the  idea. 
But  Moses  says  neither  that  nor  anything  like  it.  The 
lecturer  thus  misrepresents  the  very  first  sentence  in  the 
Pentateuch.  What  Moses  says  is,  that  "In  the  beginning 
God  created  the  heavens  and  the  earth."  What  he  created 
them  out  of,  or  when  "  in  the  beginning  "  was,  he  does  not 
say.  The  simple  thought  is  that  the  heavens  and  the  earth 
were  not  self-evolved,  but  were  created  by  the  Omnipotent 
Jehovah. 

"  You  recollect,"  he  says,  "  that  the  gods  came  down  and 
made  love  to  the  daughters  of  men,"  etc.  Where  does  Moses 
say  that?  Plenty  of  that  kind  of  talk  is  Grecian  and  Roman 
mythology,  but  what  has  that  to  do  with  "  The  Mistakes  of 
Moses? "  "  They  built  a  tower  (Babel)  to  reach  the  heavens 
and  climb  into  the  abodes  of  the  gods."  Another  of  the 
Colonel's  mistakes.  The  Tower  of  Babel  was  not  built  for 
any  such  purpose.  From  the  frequent  references  of  this 
kind  to  the  gods  in  connection  with  the  religion  of  Moses, 
it  looks  as  if  the  lecturer  was  not  aware  that  the  Jews  were 
not  particularly  in  favor  of  idolatry.  Again  he  says: 
"There  is  not  one  word  in  the  Old  Testament  about  woman 
except  words  of  shame  and  humiliation.  It  did  not  take 
the  pains  to  record  the  death  of  the  mother  of  us  all.  I  have 
no  respect  for  any  book  that  does  not  treat  woman  as  the 
equal  of  man." 

It  is  true  that  Moses  does  not  record  the  death  "  of  the 
mother  of  us  all; "  but  it  is  also  true  that  the  first  account 
of  the  burial  of  any  person  in  the  book  of  Genesis  is  that 
of  a  woman,  Sarah,  the  wife  of  Abraham.  Moses  simply 


i4  MISTAKES  OF  INGERSOLL. 

says  of  Adam:  "The  father  of  us  all,"  "And  he  died;" 
and  in  a  similar  summary  manner  are  all  the  other  men  dis- 
posed of;  bat  when  it  comes  to  this  woman  Sarah,  a  special 
lot  has  to  be  purchased  for  her,  and  secured  to  the  family, 
eo  that  her  remains  might  not  be  disturbed;  and  even  now 
in  remembrance  of  the  cave  of  the  field  in  which  she  was 
buried,  a  certain  part  of  our  modern  cemeteries  is  called 
Machpelah.  By  the  side  of  this  fact  how  does  the  declara- 
tion look  that  "  there  is  not  one  word  in  the  Old  Testament 
about  women,  except  words  of  shame  and  humiliation?" 
Suppose  I  turn  the  tables  npon  the  lecturer,  and  say,  I  have 
no  respect  for  any  book  that  does  not  treat  man  as  the  equal 
of  woman.  My  words,  if  applied  to  the  Bible,  would  be 
hardly  less  libelous  than  his. 

His    Temporary    Insanity    Occasioned   by    Heavy   Rains — 
Intellectually   Submerged   in   the    Deluge — Damaging 

Blunders — lugersoll  up  the  Wrong  Mountain. 
My  second  specification  is  that  he  not  only  makes  Moses 
•say  what  he  does  not  say,  but  he  frequently  misrepresents 
what  he  does  say.  I  name  these  particulars:  First,  in  speak- 
ing of  the  flood,  he  gives  the  impression  that,  according  to 
the  Scriptural  account,  all  the  water  that  covered  the  earth 
and  inundated  it  came  out  of  the  clouds  in  the  form  of  rain. 
He  says:  "And  then  it  began  to  rain,  and  it  kept  on  rain- 
ing until  the  water  went  twenty-nine  feet  over  the  highest 
mountains.  How  deep  were  these  waters?  About  five  and 
a  half  miles.  How  long  did  it  rain?  Forty  days.  How 
much  did  it  have  to  rain  a  day?  About  800  feet."  Now 
what  are  the  facts?  In  the  verse  which  precedes  the  one 
which  says,  "And  the  rain  was  upon  the  earth  forty  days  and 
forty  nights,"  we  have  this  record, — Gen.,  vii.,  ii. — "  In  the 
600th  year  of  Noah's  life,  in  the  second  month,  the  17th  day  of 


DX.  RYDER'S  REPLY.  25> 

the  month,  the  same  day  were  all  the  fountains  of  the  great 
deep  broken  up,  and  the  windows  of  heaven  were  opened." 
Why  did  not  the  lecturer  mention  this  statement  of  the 
"  breaking  up  of  the  fountains  of  the  great  deep,"  which  is 
generally  supposed  to  refer  to  the  upheaval  or  subsidance  of 
some  large  body  or  bodies  of  land,  perhaps  to  portions  of 
this  western  continent,  and  is  considered  to  have  been  the 
principal  cause  of  the  deluge?  Why  omit  the  supposed 
principal  cause  of  the  deluge,  unless  it  was  his  purpose  to 
make  out  a  case  without  regard  to  the  facts?  * 

Furthermore,  wh.at  authority  has  he  for  saying  that  the 
ark  rested  on  the  top  of  a  mountain  seventeen  thousand  feet 
high,  and  that  the  water  upon  the  earth  was  "  five  and  a 
half  miles  deep?"  Has  he  committed  the  ignorant  blunder 
of  confounding  Agri-Dagh  with  the  hilly  district  to  which 
the  name  was  formerly  applied?  The  lofty  peak  that  now 
bears  the  name  of  Ararat  has  no  such  designation  in  Bib- 
lical history,  and  it  is  the  name  given  to  it  in  compara- 
tively modern  times.  The  Bible  record  is:  "Fifteen  cubits 
upwards  did  the  waters  prevail."  The  Hebrew  cubit  is 
about  twenty- two  inches.  If  we  may  trust  the  conclusions 
of  science,  deluges  have  been  no  unusual  events  in  the  his- 
tory of  this  globe.  Most  of  the  land,  if  not  all  of  it,  no 
matter  how  high  at  present,  has  been  at  some  time  sub- 
merged. Whatever  one  may  think  about  the  accuracy  of 
the  narrative  in  reference  to  the  building  of  the  ark  and  the 
uses  to  which  it  was  put,  there  is  certainly  no  physical 
improbability  in  the  statement  that  that  part  of  the  earth 
which  was  then  above  water  was  thoroughly  inundated. 

Again,  the  gentleman  makes  merry  over  what  he  calls  the 
"  rib  story,"  and  imagines  two  persons  before  the  bar  of 
God,  one  believing  the  "  rib  story  "  and  the  other  denying 
it  The  believer  of  it  is  accepted  by  the  Judge  as  belonging 


26  MISTAKES  OF  INGERSOLL. 

in  Heaven,  and  the  denier  of  it  as  belonging  in  Hell.  And 
this  he  puts  before  the  public  as  Bible  doctrine — as  if  any 
man  of  common  sense,  whether  Jew  or  Gentile,  ever  defended 
eo  ridiculous  a  theory.  As  a  further  specimen  of  this  unfair- 
ness, I  present  you  this:  "  Do  you  believe  the  real  God — 
if  there  is  one — ever  killed  a  man  for  making  hair  oil? 
And  yet  you  find  in  the  Pentateuch  that  God  gave  Moses  a 
receipt  for  making  hair  oil  to  grease  Aaron's  beard ;  and 
said  if  anybody  made  the  same  hair  oil  he  would  be  killed." 
There  co«ld  hardly  be  written  a  more  complete  misrepre- 
sentation and  perfect  caricature  of  the  whole  subject  than 
this.  The  reference  in  Scripture  is  to  an  anointing  oil,  to  be 
applied,  not  simply  to  the  persons  of  the  priests,  but  to  the 
sacred  vessels  as  well;  and,  thus  anointed,  they  were  set 
apart  for  what  they  regarded  as  holy  uses.  But  if  this  cus- 
tom which  Mr.  Ingersoll  seeks  to  hold  up  to  ridicule,  was 
simply  Jewish,  there  would  be  some  show  or  plausibility  for 
talking  about  it  as  he  does;  but  he  lias  not  even  that  to  jus- 
tify his  attack.  For  this  custom  of  using  anointing  oils  in 
connection  with  religious  services,  and  sacred  persons,  and 
utensils,  was  common  among  the  idolatrous. nations,  and 
even  conspicuous  among  the  rites  of  the  Romans.  And 
even  now  one  often  meets  with  the  spirit  of  the  same  cus- 
tom. I  do  not  know  whether  the  Colonel  is  a  member  of 
the  Masonic  fraternity,  but  he  must  have  seen  representa- 
tives of  that  ancient  Order  pour  out  anointing  oil  upon  the 
corner-stone  of  some  building  which  they  were  engaged  in 
laying.  Why  not  ridicule  that,  and  why  not  also  ridicule 
the  beautiful  custom  of  that  Order  of  dropping  upon  the 
uncovered  coffin  of  a  deceased  member  the  little  sprigs  of 
evergreen  that  the  brethren  bear  in  their  hands  as  they 
march  around  his  open  grave?  It  is  easy  to  see  that  with 
reference  to  every  such  custom,  however  sacred,  one  who 


DR.  RYDER'S  REPLY.  27 

takes  the  naked  fact  apart  from  its  associations,  may  find 
abundant  material  for  ridicule.  But  whether  a  fair-minded 
man  will  allow  himself  to  treat  any  serious  subject  in  that 
manner,  is  a  question  upon  which  there  is  no  occasion  that 
I  should  pronounce  judgment.  Mr.  Ingersoll  makes  a  sim- 
ilar blunder  in  what  he  says  about  the  custom  of  sacrificing 
doves  for  the  use  of  priests,  since  the  practice  did  not  exist 
among  the  Hebrews  until  hundreds  of  years  after  the  event 
which  he  seeks  to  ridicule. 

Top-Heavy — Too   Broad  a  Structure   Reared   on  a  Too  Nar- 
row Base. 

My  third  specification  is,  that  he  treats  a  particular  inter- 
pretation of  the  Bible  as  the  undisputed  word  of  God.  He 
assumes  that  this  or  that  is  Bible  doctrine  because  some- 
body may  at  some  time  have  taught  it,  and  then  denounces 
the  whole  Bible  as  unworthy  the  respect  of  mankind. 
This  feature  of  the  address  runs  through  the  whole  of  it. 
But,  in  this  respect,  candor  compels  me  to  say  his  method 
is  that  of  Thomas  Paine  in  his  "Age  of  Reason,"  and  of  a 
certain  class,  but  not  the  better  class,  of  so-called  infidel 
writers.  Mr.  Paine  reproved  the  world  for  believing  what 
he  showed  to  be  unreasonable  doctrines,  and  called  upon 
the  people  to  throw  away  their  Bibles  for  teaching  such 
sentiments;  but  it  was  Mr.  Paine,  and  not  the  Bible  that  was 
in  fault,  for  the  doctrines  which  he  shed  so  much  ink  to 
condemn  are  not  taught  in  the  Bible.  Mr.  Ingersoll's 
method  is  precisely  the  same.  If  he  wishes  to  hold  up  to 
the  contempt  of  mankind  certain  doctrines  that  some  sect 
may  have  believed,  or  even  does  believe,  let  him  announce 
his  subject,  keep  to  his  text,  and  go  ahead;  but  to  go  from 
pluce  to  place,  exhorting  the  people  everywhere  to  throw 
away  their  Bibles,  under  the  pretense  that  these  represents- 


28  MISTAKES  OF  INGERSOLL. 

ticms  of  his  are  the  undisputed  word  of  God,  is  simply  an 
outrage  upon  the  Christian  piiblic,  and  unworthy  any  man 
who  claims  to  be  fair-minded. 

Mr.  Ingersoll's  references  to  the  clergy  disappoint  me. 
He  speaks  of  them  as  if  they  were  a  set  of  fools,  and  does 
not  add  that  they  are  all  graduates  of  prisons,  and  a  pack  of 
scoundrels  generally.  To  which  gentlemanly  references  we 
need  only  say,  that  in  this  slanderous  speech  he  is  guilty 
of  the  same  offense  against  fairness  and  good  breeding  that 
is  committed  by  any  nominal  Christian  who,  either  through 
Windless  or  perversity,  can  see  nothing  good  in  the  services 
of  the  distinguished  infidels  of  history,  and  who,  to  preju- 
dice the  public  against  them,  resort  to  the  mean  subterfuge 
of  misrepresenting  their  positions,  and  telling  falsehoods 
about  them.  If  any  man,  in  an  address  before  this  com- 
munity, should  treat  the  writings  of  Yoltaire  as  shabbily  as 
Mr.  Ingersoll  has  treated  the  writings  of  Moses, — and  as  to 
that,  the  entire  Bible, — the  Colonel  would  have  to  go  out- 
side the  Psalms  of  David  to  find  imprecations  to  express 
his  contempt.  His  references  to  Andover  have,  of  course, 
nothing  to  do  with  "  The  Mistakes  of  Moses,"  but  they 
relate  to  an  important  subject,  and  are  a  pertinent  illustra- 
tion of  the  eminent  unfairness  of  the  general  address.  This 
is  what  he  says:  "They  have  in  Massachusetts,  at  a  place 
called  Andover,  ?i  kind  of  minister  factory;  and  every  Pro- 
fessor in  that  factory  takes  an  oath  in  every  five  years  that, 
so  help  him  God,  he  will  not  during  the  next  five  years 
intellectually  advance;  and  probably  there  is  no  oath  he 
could  easier  keep.  They  believe  the  same  creed  they  first 
taught  when  the  foundation  stone  was  laid,  and  now,  when 
they  send  out  a  minister  they  brand  him,  as  hardware  from 
Birmingham  and  Sheffield.  And  every  man  who  knows 
where  he  was  educated  knows  his  creed,  knows  every  argu- 
ment of  his  creed,  every  book  that  he  has  read,  and  just 


DR.  RYDER'S  REPLY.  29 

what  lie  amounts  to  intellectually,  and  knows  that  he  will 
shrink  and  shrivel  and  become  more  and  more  stupid  day 
after  day  until  he  meets  with  death." 

My  personal  sympathy  with  the  And  over  Theological 
School  is  not,  as  you  may  suppose,  very  deep  and  ardent. 
I  respect  the  generosity  and  self-sacrifice  of  the  five  noble 
minds — one  of  whom  was  a  woman — that  founded  the  insti- 
tution in  1807,  and  the  aid  which  it  has  given  to  liberal  and 
exact  scholarship.  On  the  whole,  I  do  not  like  the  rule  to  which 
Mr.  Ingersoll  refers.  Probably  many  of  those  in  charge  of 
the  institution  do  not.  I  understand  it  to  be  a  custom  con- 
tingent upon  certain  endowments  made  long  ago,  and  which 
is  observed  as  a  matter  of  form.  But  the  rule  is  not  fairly 
open  to  the  objection  that  Mr.  Ingersoll  makes  against  it. 
First,  it  simply  relates  to  the  theological  professors,  and 
does  not  concern  the  students.  Second,  it  compels  no  man 
to  take  it  who  does  not  wish  to.  The  University  says,  in 
effect,  we  believe  in  certain  doctrines;  we  desire  the  instruc- 
tion of  this  institution  to  be  in  accordance  with  these  ideas. 
Can  you  conscientiously  teach  them?  If  so,  we  wish  you; 
if  not,  we  do  not  wish  you.  But  if  you  come  to  us,  yon 
are  not  compelled  to  remain,  but  can  go  where  you  will,  and 
when  you  will,  and  teach  what  you  please;  but  so  long  as 
'you  remain  in  the  service  of  this  institution  we  expect  you 
to  carry  out  the  purposes  of  its  founders.  "What  is  there  in 
this  that  is  particularly  narrow  and  dementing?  But  the 
Colonel  repudiates  his  own  positions.  He  says:  "  The  com- 
mon school  is  the  bread  of  life,  but  there  should  be  nothing 
taught  in  the  school  except  what  somebody  knows;  any- 
thing else  should  not  be  maintained  by  a  system  of  general 
taxation." 

Ingersoll's  Inconsistency! 

But,  let  us  inquire,  who  is  to  decide  "what  somebody 
knows?"     Practically,  the  answer  is,  the  people,  or  their 


80  MISTAKES  OF  INGERSOLL. 

representatives,  in  school  boards,  committees,  etc.  They 
select  the  text-books,  and  they  expect  instructors  whom  they 
engage  to  follow  them,  for  the  text-books  are  assumed  to 
embody  what  is  true  on  the  subjects  to  which  they  relate. 
"What  would  the  lecturer  say  of  a  teacher  in  one  of  our  public 
schools  who  should  to-day  teach  the  rejected  doctrine  that 
the  sun  revolves  about  the  earth?  "What,  but  this:  turn 
him  out  and  put  some  one  in  his  place  who  teaches  the 
truth — which,  being  interpreted,  means,  teaches  according 
to  the  authorized  text-books.  Why,  on  the  very  occasion  of 
the  lecture  itself,  after  the  Colonel  had  denounced  Andover 
for  pledging  loyalty  to  certain  doctrines,  and  which  act  he 
characterizes  as  so  harmful  to  freedom  of  thought,  he  him- 
self demands  of  the  people  whom  he  is  addressing  that  they 
will  never  support  a  certain  form  of  doctrine,  nor  give  money 
to  aid  in  building  any  church  in  which  they  are  taught. 
His  language  is:  "I  would  have  every  one  who  hears  me 
swear  that  he  will  never  contribute  another  dollar  to  build 
another  church  in  which  is  taught  such  infamous  lies." 
Mark  you,  not  simply  a  pledge  for  five  years,  but  they  are 
never  to  change  their  views.  My  friends,  is  there  no  such 
thing  as  consistency  in  belief  ?  Is  one  a  bigot  because  he 
says,  This  is  what  I  believe,  and  this,  therefore,  I  defend? 
Are  these  men  to  be  ridiculed  and  assailed,  and  only  those 
who  shirk  such  responsibility  to  be  held  up  as  patterns  and 
guides?  Brethren,  I  am  not  speaking  of  some  sophoinoric 
oration,  but  about  the  deliberate  thought  of  a  man  who  has 
made  himself  famous  in  this  line  of  labor,  and  of  whom  our 
townsman  who  gracefully  introduced  him  said,  "  a  man  who 
does  his  own  thinking,  and  who  thinks  before  he  says." 
Now,  of  every  such  man  it  is  safe  to  say,  he  knows  that 
organization  is  essential  to  the  welfare  of  society,  and  is 
perfectly  consistent  with  liberty  of  thought.  The  free- 
thinkers of  this  country  are  organized  as  well  as  others; 


DR.  RYDER'S  REPLY.  31 

and  it  is  their  right  to  be  if  they  have  anything  to  teach  or 
defend.  A  Christian  combination,  against  which  some  peo- 
ple hurl  their  anathemas,  is  simply  the  grouping  together 
of  those  who  have  a  similar  mind  and  purpose,  the  better  to 
do  this  work  which  they  have  in  common.  Of  course  there 
has  been  in  connection  with  some  of  these  denominations  a 
fearful  amount  of  bigotry.  When  we  come  to  that  topic  we 
are  quite  at  home.  Bigotry  is  no  friend  of  ours:  we  owe 
him  no  service.  The  denomination  which  this  church  rep- 
resents has  received  from  the  dominant  sects  about  us  a 
pretty  large  share  of  persecution  and  abuse.  But,  for  all 
that,  we  do  not  propose  to  follow  the  lecturer's  example  and 
call  our  brethren  hard  names,  simply  because  they  apply 
such  epithets  to  us. 

He   Has   no   Poetry   in   His   Soul ;   Ergo,    etc. 

My  fourth  specification  is,  that  he  misrepresents  the  wri- 
tings of  Moses,  and,  as  to  that,  the  entire  Bible,  by  treating 
its  metaphoric  language  as  literal  statements. 

Think  of  a  man,  in  this  age  of  light,  speaking  of  the  pic- 
tured representation  of  the  Old  Testament  in  this  way: 
"  Thev  believed  that  an  an^el  could  take  a  lever,  raise  a 

«/  o  ' 

window,  and  let  out  the  desired  quantity  of  moisture.  I 
find  out  in  the  Psalms  that  he  bowed  the  heavens  and  came 
down."  I  wonder  if  the  gentleman  can  see  anything  but 
mere  literalism  in  this  passage?  "As  the  mountains  round 
about  Jerusalem,  so  the  Lord  is  round  about  His  people  from 
henceforth,  even  forever."  Like  other  nations,  the  Hebrews 
have  their  patriotic,  descriptive,  didactic,  and  lyrical  poems 
in  the  same  varieties  as  other  nations;  but  with  them,  unlike 
other  nations,  whatever  may  be  the  form  of  their  poetry,  it 
always  possesses  the  characteristic  of  religion.  Even  their 
patriotic  songs  are  a  part  of  their  religion.  The  Jews  have 
taught  the  world  its  devotional  poetry.  If  there  is  to  bo 

3 


82  MISTAKES  OF  INGERSOLL. 

found  anywhere  conceptions  of  the  Deity  and  of  the  universe 
more  remarkable  for  their  sublimity  and  grandeur  than  are 
met  with  in  the  sacred  books  of  the  Jews,  I  know  not  where 
to  look  for  them.  Certainly  when  they  are  compared  with 
the  religious  poems  of  other  countries,  most  nearly  contem- 
poraneous, as  those  of  Homer  and  Ilesiod,  they  are  so  vastly 
superior  as  to  lead  to  the  belief  that,  if  the  poets  of  idola- 
trous Greece  drew  their  inspiration  from  human  genius  and 
learning,  those  of  Judea  had  a  higher  illumination. 

Additional    Misrepresentations. 

My  fifth  specification  is,  that  the  representation  given  in 
the  lecture  of  the  Hebrews  as  a  people,  is  almost  wholly  in- 
correct, both  as  to  the  work  undertaken  by  them  and  the 
effect  of  that  work  upon  mankind. 

We  have  no  disposition  to  shut  our  eyes  to  the  ignorance, 
cruelty  and  superstition  of  the  Hebrew  race  in  the  early 
periods  of  their  history.  There  was  but  little  in  them  that 
gave  the  promise  of  a  great  nation  when  Moses  led  them 
out  of  Egypt.  They  were  low  in  the  scale  of  civilization. 
Many  of  the  things  done  by  them  we  cannot  justify,  and 
we  are  not  required  to  do  so.  But  what  arrests  our  atten- 
tion is,  that  almost  from  the  first  they  show  a  gradual  im- 
provement in  their  condition,  and  finally  reach  that  proud 
pre-eminence  when  Jerusalem  became  the  Athens  of  its 
day.  There  are  two  points  of  view  from  which  to  judge  of 
the  early  history  of  any  people:  one  is,  to  compare  it  with 
that  of  contemporary  nations,  and  the  other  is,  to  compare 
it  with  our  own  time.  It  is  manifest  that  the  former  is  the 
proper  basis  of  judgment.  Consider,  then,  as  already  inti- 
mated, who  the  people  were  that  Moses  thus  led  out  of 
Egypt.  Reflect  that  they  were  but  children  in  intelligence, 
and  that  the  higher  forms  of  thought  had  but  little  influence 
over  them;  and  that  if  they  were  held  to  the  law  of  duty, 


DR.  RYDER'S  REPLY.  83 

and  organized  into  a  nation,  it  must  be  by  such  material 
forms  and  simple  customs  as  they  could  comprehend.  Re- 
flect, furthermore,  that  these  people  had  been  brought  up  in 
the  midst  of  idolatry,  and  that  in  leaving  Egypt  they  did 
not  get  away  from  its  influences,  but  that,  wherever  they 
went,  they  were  assailed  by  it;  that  idolatry  was  almost  the 
universal  form  of  worship,  and  that  it  was  a  mighty  task  to 
educate  these  people  in  the  doctrine  of  the  one  only  living 
and  true  God,  and  hold  them  to  it.  Reflect,  furthermore, 
that  to  secure  this  end  much  might  then  be  done  which, 
under  the  circumstances,  would  be  at  least  excusable,  that 
should  not  be  done  now.  Fairness  requires  that  we  con- 
sider whether  the  custom  originated  with  the  Jews  them- 
selves, and  what  was  its  spirit  and  purpose. 

Prominent  mention  is  made  in  the  lecture  of  polygamy 
in  connection  with  the  Jews,  and  one  would  infer  from 
what  he  says  that  the  custom  of  plurality  of  wives  originated 
with  them,  and  that  it  was  a  custom  peculiar  to  them. 
This  is  his  language:  "Is  there  a  woman  here  who  believes 
in  the  institution  of  polygamy?  Is  there  a  man  here  who 
believes  in  that  infamy?  You  say 'no,  we  do  not.'  Then 
you  are  better  than  your  God  was  4,000  years  ago.  Four 
thousand  years  ago  he  believed  in  it,  taught  it,  and  upheld 
it."  The  facts  appear  to  be  these:  Polygamy  has  existed 
from  time  immemorial.  Even  in  the  Homeric  age  of  the 
Greeks  it  prevailed  to  some  extent,  and,  though  not  known 
in  republican  Rome,  it  practically  prevailed  under  the 
Empire,  owing  to  the  prevalence  of  divorce;  but  in  what 
we  call  the  Eastern  nations  the  custom  has  been  almost 
universal,  being  sanctioned  by  all  religions,  including  that 
of  Mohammedanism.  In  this  regard  the  Hebrews,  to  a  cer- 
tain extent,  followed  the  prevalent  custom  viz:  the  law  of 
Moses  did  not  forbid  it,  but  did  contain  many  provisions 
against  its  worst  abuses,  and  such  as  were  intended  to 


84  MISTAKES  OF  INGERSOLL. 

restrict  it  within  narrow  limits;  and,  as  the  spirit  of  the 
Hebrew  religion  advanced  the  civilization  of  the  nation, 
the  practice  more  and  more  fell  into  disuse,  until  it  finally 
died  out;  and  in  the  glimpses  of  Jewish  life  which  the  New 
Testament  gives  us,  there  are  no  traces  of  it  discernible. 
Since  the  Hebrew  race  the  world  over,  for  some  2,000  years, 
has  as  much  as  any  other  people  discountenanced  such 
practices,  though  still  firmly  believing  in  Moses  as  the 
prophet  of  God,  it  is  clear  that  they  do  not  consider  polyg- 
amy any  part  of  the  Jewish  system,  but  a  custom  permit- 
ted for  a  season  because  so  universally  practiced  by  the 
surrounding  nations. 

Doctor  Ryder  Propounds  a   Question. 

/  But  just  here  comes  in  a  question  of  high  importance. 
If  there  is  nothing  in  Judaism  to  exalt  woman — and  every 
reference  to  her  in  their  sacred  books  is  one  of  "  humiliation 
and  shame" — how  happens  it  that  the  Jews  discarded  the 
custom  of  polygamy  some  two  thousand  years  ago,  while 
the  practice  still  prevails  among  the  nations  of  the  East, 
and  notably  in  Mohammedanism,  which,  in  so  many  respects, 
takes  the  external  form  of  Judaism?  The  truth  is,  that  great 
injustice  has  been  done  to  the  real  religion  of  the  Hebrews, 
by  both  Christians  and  unbelievers.  "We  have  judged  it  too 
exclusively  by  the  Mosaic  law,  and  the  mere  letter  of  it  at 
that.  Real  Judaism  is  not  the  Old  Testament,  but  that 
which  has  come  out  of  it — the  result  of  its  growth,  and  the 
expansion  of  its  inherent  forces.  Long  before  the  advent 
of  our  Lord  the  Mosaic  law  had  virtually  given  way  to  the 
Jewish  religion,  and  it  is  that  religion,  the  spirit  of  which 
in  the  beginning  so  largely  came  from  the  great  law-giver 
himself  that  has  had  three  thousand  years  of  existence  to 
certify  its  right  to  live,  and  which  to-day  assigns  it  a  most 
honorable  place  among  the  religions  of  humanity.  And  in 


DR.  RYDER'S  PEPLT.  85 

dismissing  this  branch  of  our  subject,  it  seems  pertinent  to 
inquire,  where  did  Moses  obtain  his  religious  ideas?  The 
Egyptians  had  reached  high  advancement  in  the  arts  and 
sciences  in  the  time  of  Moses,  but  their  degradation  in  refer- 
ence to  religion  is  unmistakable.  It  is  said  of  Moses  that 
he  "  was  learned  in  all  the  wisdom  of  the  Egyptians,  and 
was  mighty  in  words  and  deeds;  "  and  he  was  no  doubt 
greatly  aided  by  what  he  had  learned  from  them,  but  it 
seems  too  evident  to  admit  of  discussion  that  he  did  not  get 
his  religious  ideas  from  that  source.  Whence  came  they? 
But,  whatever  may  be  our  answer  to  this  question,  there 
can  be,  it  seems  to  me,  but  one  opinion  as  to  the  respect 
due  to  the  illustrious  religious  leader  who  has  made  upon 
the  race  so  profound  an  impression  for  good. 

The  five  specifications  now  before  you  cover  the  evidence 
we  offer  of  the  correctness  of  our  general  proposition,  viz.: 
that  the  address  upon  "  The  Mistakes  of  Moses,"  is  a  con- 
spicuous illustration  of  prejudice  and  unfairness. 

Ingersoll  Admits  His  Sad  Need  of  Inspiration. 

.  Col.  Ingersoll  uses  this  language:  "  Nothing  needs  inspir- 
ation but  a  falsehood  or  a  mistake.  A  fact  never  went  into 
partnership  with  a  miracle."  "  A  fact  will  fit  every  other 
fact  in  the  universe,  and  that  is  how  you  can  tell  whether 
or  not  it  is  a  fact."  Suppose  we  test  this  rule.  How  about 
good  and  evil,  truth  and  error,  the  mysterious  and  the  evi- 
dent, divine  sovereignty  and  human  freedom,  heat  and  cold, 
art  and  asceticism,  economy  and  benevolence,  government 
and  freedom,  each  of  which  is  an  undisputed  fact,  but  each 
two  facts  that  we  thus  group  together  no  more  fit  each  other 
than  the  centripetal  and  centrifugal  forces,  which,  acting  in 
opposite  directions,  hold  the  universe  together?  My  friends, 
there  is  a  recognizable  distinction  between  the  knowable 
and  unknowable.  But  the  line  that  separates  the  two  is 


86  MISTAKES  OF  INGERSOLL. 

not  sharply  defined.  The  border  land  between'them  seems 
sometimes  near  and  at  other  times  very  far  away.  The 
realm  beyond  the  knowable  is  the  realm  of  mystery,  and 
out  of  it  come  some  of  the  most  potential  forces  that  sway 
our  lives.  What  we  call  the  knowable  is  those  tilings  that 
can  be  demonstrated — can  be  proved  to  be  true  by  a  prac- 
tical method.  But  consider  how  small  a  portion  of  our  real 
life  is  covered  by  any  such  form  of  real  evidence.  For 
neither  our  affections,  nor  our  tastes,  nor  our  judgments, 
nor  our  beliefs,  nor  our  ambitions,  nor  the  higher  expres- 
sions of  our  moral  natures,  can  be  thus  demonstrated. 
They  do  not  in  any  way  depend  upon  the  classification  of 
facts  in  nature,  but  are  cognizable  by  our  consciousness, 
and  are  so  widely  operative  in  our  daily  life,  that  it  almost 
seems  as  if  what  we  call  the  knowable  never  touches  us  at  all. 
/"  Science  has  nothing  to  say  about,  or  to  do  with,  either 
/morals,  religion,  benevolence,  duty,  or  inspiration.  The 
Vflources  of  life,  the  cause  of  thought,  of  affection,  passion, 
hope,  and  love,  are  all  incomprehensible  to  science,  and  Avill 
remain  so  till  the  end  of  time.  "There  is  no  science  of  the 
soul,  any  more  than  there  is  a  prayer  in  mathematics.'1  How 
utterly,  then,  does  one  misapprehend  and  misstate  the  real 
facts  of  human  experience,  who  teaches  that  "  nothing  needs 
inspiration  but  a  falsehood,  or  a  mistake,"  and  that  one  is  to 
accept  nothing  as  true  which  cannot  be  demonstrated.  How 
much  wiser  and  how  much  better  are  the  words  of  St.  Au- 
gustine, when  he  says:  "God  exists  more  truly  than  he  can 
be  thought  of;  He  can  be  thought  of  more  truly  than  he 
can  be  spoken  of."  For  myself,  I  reverently  believe  that 
the  Bible  contains  a  revelation  from  God.  1  say  contains 
a  revelation  from  God,  not  that  it  is  in  itself  such  a  revela- 
tion, for  the  Bible,  as  such,  was  not  revealed.  The  inspira- 
tion that  breathes  through  its  pages  is  of  some  of  the  things 
written,  but  not  of  all;  the  inspiration  is  rather  of  the 


DR.  RYDER'S  REPLY.  87    . 

thought,  purpose,  the  leadings  of  God,  than  of  the  letter  in 
which  they  are  expressed.  There  is,  to  my  mind,  no  appeal 
from  the  words  of  Christ  once  satisfied  that  he  uttered  the 
sayings  which  are  attributed  to  Him  in  the  Gospels,  and 
they  are,  to  me  at  least,  infallibly  true,  and  literally  "the 
words  of  eternal  life." 

Ingersoll's   "  Religion   of  Humanity  "   All   Right  Except 

the  Religion.  \ 

The  influence  of  such  an  address  is  to  completely  destroy  ' 
the  religious  faith  which  the  people  now  have,  and  give 
them  nothing  in  return.  It  is  true  Mr.  Ingersoll  commends 
to  his  hearers  "  the  religion  of  humanity."  But  what  does 
he  mean  by  it?  The  answer  is,  he  means  simply  Atheism, 
which  is  virtually  the  rejection  of  all  religion,  since  it  is 
the  denial  of  the  beinor  Of  God  himself.  Now  with  God 

o 

dethroned,  the  name  religion  has  no  further  use.  What, 
then,  is  the  religion  of  humanity  to  those  who  deny  the 
existence  of  God,  and  leave  everything  either  to  chance  or  in- 
exorable law?  One  might  infer  from  the  assumption  of  these 
Atheistic  teachers  that  free-thinkers  are  the  only  people  who 
have  any  religion  of  humanity,  or  who  practice  it.  The 
general  impression  made  by  the  Colonel's  lecture  is  that 
Christians  are  a  bad  lot — mean,  hypocritical,  demented  kind 
of  folks;  and  that  bright  and  progressive  people,  such  as 
"  have  brains  "  (though  it  does  not  require  a  large  supply 
of  that  article  to  qualify  one  to  ridicule  another  person's 
religion)  and  "  do  their  own  thinking,"  reject  all  such 
absurdities  as  revealed  religion,  and  are  governed  by  some 
sort  of  a  higher  law. 

Now  that  this  view  of  human  nature,  so  complimentary 
and  congenial,  withal,  is  "quite  taking"  is  very  likely  true. 
One  likes  to  be  patted  on  the  back  in  this  way,  and  be 
called  "  progressive,"  and  not  hide-bound  like  those  old 


38  MISTAKES  OF  INGERSOLL. 

fogies,  and  stupid  theological  graduates,  and  owlish  minis- 
ters, and  such  sort  of  folks.  But  somehow  it  does  not  seem 
to  stay  upon  the  public  stomach  after  it  is  taken.  For  this 
is  just  the  kind  of  talk  in  which  noisy  infidels  have  indulged 
for  the  past  300  years.  "  Christianity  is  virtually  extinct," 
they  say,  "and  now  we  are  to  have  a  new  order  of  things." 
But,  for  some  reason,  Christianity  does  not  die,  ,and  the 
world  moves  forward  in  much  the  old  way." 

truth  is,  some  things  seem  very  well  as  declamation 
that  utterly  elude  you  when  you  attempt  to  embody  them 
in  vital  forms.  As  theories  they  look  well,  but  in  practice 
they  are  worthless.  They  are  as  beautiful  as  foam  and  just 
as  substantial.  Where  are  the  monuments  of  free  religion? 
In  the  struggle  for  religious  liberty  in  France  I  recognize 
the  powerful  influence  of  Voltaire;  and  an  advocacy  of  a 
true  democracy  in  this  country,  very  few,  if  any,  did  more 
by  their  pen  than  Thomas  P<iine;  but,  aside  from  these 
general  benefits  to  society,  where  are  the  testimonies  of  the 
work  they  wrought?  What  did  they  do  for  the  more  per- 
fect organization  of  society,  and  for  the  elevation  and 
purity  of  the  public  morals?  I  repeat,  where  are  the  mon- 
uments of  this  free  religion?  Has  it  nothing  to  show  in  its 
own  behalf  but  slanderous  assertions?  And  has  its  most 
distinguished  advocate  in  this  country  degenerated  into  a 
jesting  scoffer?  Who  built  the  institutions  of  learning 
throughout  the  Christian  world,  and  who  supports  them? 
Who  organized  the  institutions  of  charity,  and  who  sustains 
them?  I  repeat,  this  "religion  of  humanity,"  whatever 
that  may  be,  does  well  enough  to  talk  about,  but,  somehow, 
when  there  is  solid  work  to  be  done  nobody  wants  it,  and 
somehow,  nobody  seems  to  do  or  pay  much  towards  sup- 
porting it.  The  leading  universities  in  Germany  that  did 
so  much  forty  years  ago  in  disseminating  Rationalism  are 
now  comparatively  empty,  while  those  of  the  religious 


DR.  RYDER'S  REPLY.  39 

schools  are  patronized.  To-day  every  prominent  university 
in  Germany  except  that  in  Heidelberg  is  controlled  in  the 
interests  of  revealed  religion,  and  Heidelberg  has  but  very 
few  theological  students  left.  And,  if  one  may  judge  of 
the  effects  of  teaching  by  the  deportment  of  those  taught, 
it  will  be,  I  think,  nearly  the  unanimous  opinion  of  travelers 
that  they  are  very  badly  instructed,  for  a  prominent  part  of 
the  business  of  the  students  of  that  institution  seems  to  be 
to  get  up  quarrels  with  each  other  and  with  the  public,  and 
fight  duels.  The  truth  is,  that  the  sober  second  thought  of 
the  thinking  world  has  shut  its  "  colossal  shears"  upon  the 
theories  of  Bauer,  Strauss,  and  Renan,  and  no  wisdom  of 
man  will  ever  reunite  the  dissevered  fragments. 

Dr.  Ryder  tells  a  Little   Story  for  the  Sake  of  Illustration. 

How  strange  it  is  that  nearly  all  the  world  should  be  such 
simpletons,  and  that  human  nature  persists  in  exploding  all 
these  fine  theories  that  have  no  real  religion  in  them.  But 
then,  you  know,  some  people  are  wise  in  their  own  conceits. 
Let  me  relate  an  incident:  "  An  eminent  lawyer  had  in 
court  a  very  clear  case.  After  presenting  an  array  of  testi- 
mony, law,  and  precedents  that  he  thought  was  unanswer- 
able, he  submitted  his  case.  To  his  utter  astonishment,  the 
Judge,  who  was  bigotedly  and  dogmatically  on  the  opposite 
side  in  prejudice,  decided  every  point  of  the  case  against 
him.  After  he  had  recovered  from  his  amazement,  he  arose 
and  proceeded  to  read  Blackstone  and  leading  jurists,  the 
statute  law,  and  judicial  decisions,  flatly  contradicting  the 
decision  of  the  Court.  The  Judge  pompously  interrupted 
him  with:  '  That  will  do  you  no  good;  the  mind  of  the 
court  is  made  up;  cannot  change  it.'  The  lawyer  replied: 
1 1  have  no  expectation  of  changing  the  opinion  of  the 
court.  I  do  not  question  the  infallibility  and  the  infallible 
accuracy  of  its  decision.  I  only  want  to  show  what  consum- 


40  MISTAKES  OF  INGERSOLL. 

mate  fools  Blackstone,  Kent,  and  all  jurists,  our  legislators, 
and  all  the  judges,  except  the  judge  of  this  court,  must  have 
been.'" 

Friends  of  humanity,  lovers  of  the  truth  as  it  is  in  Jesus, 
can  we  afford  to  trifle  with  such  a  momentous  issue  as  this? 
Is  there  nothing  sacred,  nothing  but  the  mere  husk  of  things 
in  which  it  is  safe  for  us  to  place  our  faith?  Is  there  no  per- 
manent joy  this  side  the  grave,  and  only  the  blackness  of 
darkness  beyond?  Is  the.religion  in  which  so  many  millions 
trust  simply  a  delusion,  and  the  God  whom  we  adore  merely 
-a  myth?  If  so,  why  are  we  in  this  world,  and  what  is  this 
world?  What  is  anything  for  but  to  lure  us  into  disap- 
pointment? 

Nay,  we  believe  in  God,  the  Father  everlasting,  and  in 
Jesus  Christ,  Ilis  Son.  In  the  love  which  They  awaken,  we 
desire  to  live;  and  in  the  trust  which  They  inspire,  we  hope 
to  die. 


DR.  HERFORD'S  REPLY.  41 


DR.    HERFORD'S   REPLY. 


ALL  through  my  life  I  have  felt  a  very  deep  sympathy 
for  those  who  have  become  alienated  from  Christianity  by 
the  irrational  and  unworthy  things  often  taught  in  its  name. 
It  seems  such  a  miserable,  gratuitous  loss,  as  if  there  waa 
not  enough  to  make  even  the  purest  faith  often  dim  and 
doubtful  without  it  being  made  more  so  by  the  follies  of 
those  who  should  strengthen  men  in  it !  But  so  it  is.  And 
of  course  one  cannot  expect  men  in  that  strong  reaction  to 
be  very  discriminating  in  what  they  attack.  But  there  are 
limits!  A  man  is  not  absolved  from  the  duty  of  thinking 
and  speaking  fairly  by  having  come  to  reject  the  popular 
opinions  of  society.  Now  it  seems  to  me  that  this  recent 
lecture  of  Col.  Ingersoll's  overpasses  all  just  limits.  I 
frankly  own  its  brilliant  eloquence,  its  irresistible  humor, 
and  the  passionate  impulses  of  tender  human  sympathy 
which  flash  out  in  it.  I  can  quite  understand  many  being 
carried  along  by  these.  But  afterward  has  to  come  the  sober 
thinking  and  the  honest  questioning.  What  does  it  amount 
to?  Are  its  positions  true?  Are  its  arguments  fair?  It 
seems  to  me  that  they  are  glaringly  the  opposite.  The 
whole  test  that  he  applies  to  his  subject  is  a  mistake;  the 
way  in  which  he  applies  it  is  not  even  moderately  just;  ita 
representations  are  one-sided;  its  illustrations  are  carica- 
ture. And  the  worst  of  all  is  that  there  is  no  sign  even  of 
any  desire  or  attempt  to  be  fairl 


42  MISTAKES  OF  INGERSOLL. 

The   Ingersoll  Paradox. 

The  first  of  Col.  Ingersoll's  mistakes,  is  in  the  whole  point 
of  view  in  which  he  places  the  Bible  in  order  to  make  it  the 
easier  target  for  his  wit.  He  starts  by  repudiating  any  idea 
of  its  having  been  written  by  God's  inspiration;  and  yet 
all  through  talks  as  if  God  were  responsible  for  it — as  if 
God  had  said  this  and  threatened  that — and  becomes  quite 
heroic  in  his  declaration  that  God  may  damn  him,  but  he 
won't  believe  such  things!  When  once  inspiration  is  put 
aside,  such  declarations  are  mere  clap-trap!  When  you  look 
through  all  this,  you  find  that  in  reality  he  simply  regards 
the  Bible  as  the  work,  the  ideas  of  men.  Very  well;  then 
take  it  so,  and  judge  it  fairly  in  that  light!  If  the  book  of 
Genesis  is,  as  Col.  Ingersoll  believes,  the  writings  and  the 
ideas  of  ancient  men,  then  do  not  attack  it  because  the  ideas 
are  not  those  of  men  to-day.  But  that  is  what  he  is  con- 
stantly doing.  He  is  very  fond  of  saying,  "The  question  is 
not,  is  it  inspired,  but  is  it  true?"  That  sounds  very  plaus- 
ible, but  you  know,  as  applied  to  any  ancient  book,  it  is 
simply  nonsense.  It  is  a  test  which  you  don't  apply  to  any 
other  ancient  book  in  the  world.  You  do  not  try  Homer's 
"  Iliad  "  by  the  test  of  whether  it  is  true.  When  a  clay 
tablet  is  dug  up  at  Nineveh,  or  a  papyrus  is  found  in  some 
mummy-wrappings,  you  don't  ask,  Is  it  true?  and  if  not, 
throw  it  away.  The  question  about  all  such  things  is  not, 
"Are  they  true?"  but  "Are  they  genuine  relics  and  repre- 
sentations of  the  thought  of  the  ancient  world?"  By-and- 
by  indeed  will  come  the  question,  how  far  any  records  or 
statements  in  such  ancient  writings  can  be  taken  to  throw 
light  on  actual  history — how  far  their  statements  are  alle- 
gorical or  poetical,  or  mere  ancient  tradition?  Well  and 
good.  And  by  all  means  let  those  questions  be  applied  to 
Genesis;  apply  them  just  as  you  would  to  any  other  ancient 


DR.  IIERFORD'S  REPLY.  48 

writings;  but  in  tlie  name  of  common  fairness  don't  pick  it 
to  pieces  by  a  minute  verbal  criticism,  and  a  strained  liber-      \ 
ality  which  would  only  be  justifiable  on  the  ground  of  its 
being  verbally  inspired.     That  is  a  mistake  which  may  be 
merely  a  mental  confusion,  but  a  graver  one  lies  beyond. 

Ingersoll's   Exaggerations   and   False   Assertions. 

II r.  Ingprsoll  not  only  applies  a  kind  of  test  to  the  book 
of  Genesis  which  he  would  not  think  of  applying  to  any 
other  book,  but  he  does  not  even  apply  his  own  test  fairly. 
lie  stands  upon  the  very  letter,  but  he  constantly  misrep- 
resents and  twists  the  letter.  lie  exaggerates,  makes  things 
worse  than  they  are;  if  he  can  make  a  bad  meaning  anyhow 
he  does  so.  lie  says:  "The  gentleman  that  wrote  Genesis 
begins  by  telling  us  that  God  made  the  universe  out  of 
nothing."  It  does  not  say  so.  It  simply  says:  "In  the 
beginning  God  created  the  heaven  and  the  earth."  A  little 
further  on  he  makes  great  fun  of  the  grass  being  created  on 
the  second  day,  while  the  sun  was  not  created  till  the  third 
day,  so  that  the  grass  was  growing  without  having  "  ever 
been  touched  by  a  gleam  of  light."  Yet  right  before  him 
were  these  words,  at  the  beginning  of  all:  "  And  God  said, 
let  there  be  light,  and  there  was  light."  Of  course,  the 
whole  idea  is  that  of  the  world's  childhood,  but  why  strain 
a  point  to  make  it  ridiculous?  It  is  a  far  worse  perversion 
where  he  says:  "You  will  find  by  jeading  the  second  chap- 
ter that  God  tried  to  palm  off  on  Adam  a  beast  as  his  help- 
meet." Now  there  is  absolutely  no  justification  for  such  a 
representation.  The  whole  thing  is  a  gratuitious  invention 
of  his  own.  These  are  small  verbal  matters,  but  they  show 
the  utter  unscrupulonsness  with  which  those  ancient  tradi- 
tions are  exaggerated  and  distorted  to  make  better  point  for 
his  ridicule. 

And  then,  even  in  larger  things,  he  cannot  be  decently 


44  MISTAKES  OF  INGERSOLL. 

fair,  though  the  explaining  truth  may  lie  on  the  very  sur- 
face. He  quotes  the  first  part  of  the  command  against  mak- 
ing any  graven  image,  and  then  goes  off  into  one  of  its 
tirades  about  that  being  a  law  which  was  "  the  death  of  all 
art  "  among  the  Jews.  Not  a  word  about  the  closing  part 
of  the  command — really  the  essence  of  it:  "  Thou  shalt  not 
bow  down  to  them,  nor  worship  them!  "  Why,  even  if  it 
were  as  he  implies,  that  Moses  utterly  prohibited  all  the  art 
of  sculpture,  the  making  of  idols  being  merely  one  part,  still, 
which  was  of  most  importance  to  the  world — that  the  Jews 
should  have  cultivated  art  a  little  more,  or  that  they  should, 
even  at  the  cost  of  art  altogether,  be  kept  from  idolatry? 
But  then  Mr.  Ingersoll  is  not  even  true  in  his  fact.  The 
command  was  only  understood  as  a  command  against  idol- 
making,  not  against  other  forms  of  sculpture,  and  the  best 
proof  of  this  is  that  they  did  have  other  forms  of  sculpture 
even  in  Moses'  time,  and  later  had  art  of  no  ignoble  kind. 
Even  there  in  the  wilderness  we  read  how  the  sacred  ark  was 
by  Moses'  command  shadowed  over  by  the  images  of  two 
cherubim,  with  outstretched  wings  made  of  pure  gold,  and 
the  candlestick  was  made  with  branches  which  were  shaped 
like  almonds,  alternately  a  bud  and  a  flower.  And  later, 
when  Solomon  built  the  temple,  we  not  only  read  of  two 
similar  cherubim,  but  of  colossal  size,  extending  their  wings 
over  the  shrine,  but  also  that  "  he  carved  all  the  walls  of  the 
house  round  about  with  carved  figures  of  cherubim  and  palm- 
trees  and  open  flowers;  "  while  in  his  own  palace  we  read  of 
sculptured  pillars,  with  pomegranate  capitals,  and  images 
of  oxen  and  lions,  round  the  great  brazen  "laver." 

Or,  take  his  representation  of  Christians  thinking  of 
Heaven  as  a  place  where  their  happiness  will  be  enhanced 
by  seeing  the  tortures  of  the  damned.  Here  he  rises  to  the 
height  of  his  most  fiery  indignation.  And  it  is  a  horrible 
idea.  But  then,  who  holds  it — who  preaches  it?  It  is  an 


DR.  HERFORD'S  REPLY.  45 

idea  of  Heaven  that  was  prevalent  among  one  sect  of  Chris- 
tians a  century  ago.  But  even  they  have  not  preached  it 
for  a  century.  And  yet  he  says,  without  a  word  of  limita- 
tion, "This  is  the  Christian  view  of  Heaven,"  and  makes  a 
powerful  appeal  to  his  hearers  not  to  give  a  "  dollar  to  any 
man  to  preach  that  falsehood."  Why,  there  is  not  a  churc 
in  all  the  land  where  he  could  find  a  man  preaching  that 
to  give  his  dollar  to;  no,  not  even  if  the  person  were  only 
a  stump  politician,  turned  preacher  in  the  slack  season  be- 
tween campaigns. 

And  the  same  of  his  representation  of  the  attitude  of 
Christianity  toward  those  who  do  not  believe  in  the  early 
traditions  of  Genesis.  He  represents  Christianity  as  teach- 
ing that  any  man  who  does  not  believe  the  "  rib  story  "  will 
go  to  Hell,  however  good  he  was  in  other  respects.  Is  that 
an  honest  representation?  Why,  even  if  all  orthodoxy 
preached  that,  orthodoxy  is  not  all  of  Christianity.  Has 
Col.  Ingersoll  ever  heard  of  Channing  and  Parker  and  Starr 
King?  Are  the  bodies  of  the  Unitarian  church,  the  Uni- 
versalists,  the  Christians,  the  Quakers,  not  worth  a  passing 
word?  Did  he  not  know  when  he  put  that  champion  joke 
about  the  "  rib  story  "  that  he  was  representing  as  the  teach- 
ing of  the  churches  what  many  entire  churches,  and  the  best 
men  in  all  churches,  never  have  held,  nor  preached,  nor 
countenanced  in  any  way?  -Yet  he  comes  rampaging  into 
the  field,  with  a  whoop  and  a  yell,  brandishing  his  shillelah, 
delving  Christianity,  calling  ministers  "owls  "  and  "  idiots," 
and  swooping  round  as  if  he  were  the  first  who  had  found 
out  a  little  common  sense  about  the  Bible!  But  after  all, 
the  real  matter  at  issue  is  not  as  to  this  or  that  exaggerated 
or  Tinfair  criticism  of  the  Old  Testament,  but  has  it  any 
real,  substantial  worth?  It  has.  It  gives  us  the  origin  of 
the  world's  noblest  religious  faith;  it  shows  us  the  purest 
faith  of  to-day  in  its  first  roots  in  the  far-off  ancient  world; 


46 

and  so  I  think  it  strengthens  our  conviction  that  that  faith 
is  not  a  temporary  or  isolated  thing  that  may  be  mistaken, 
but  part  of  that  long  development  of  man  which  surelv 
corresponds  to  the  truth  and  fact  of  the  universe. 

Dr.   Herford's  Story  of  Moses,   with  an  Apt  Illustration— 
The  Germinal  Power  of  the  Pentateuch. 

When  I  hear  people  treating  the  Pentateuch  as  something 
they  would  like  to  see  done  away,  I  cannot  help  wishing 
that  it  could  be  dug  up  afresh  in  these  days  of  curious 
research  into  the  past.  Why,  suppose  that  the  Jews  had  no 
such  books ;  and  had  not  known  anything  of  their  origin 
except  a  vague  tradition  of  some  sort  of  migration  under 
one  Moses,  and  curiously  fitting  to  this  the  Egyptian  tradi- 
tion— which  is,  you  know,  that  some  thirteen  hundred  years 
before  Christ  a  great  multitude  of  people  had  gone  out  of 
Egypt  led  by  an  Egyptian  priest,  who  taught  them  many 
things  contrary  to  the  Egyptian  religion,  and  afterward 
changed  his  name  to  Moses.  "Well,  supposing  then  theso 
books  of  the  Pentateuch  should  be  discovered  somewhere 
— why,  the  world  would  go  wild  over  them.  What  would 
it  matter  whether  it  could  be  settled  that  Moses  did  or  did 
not  write  them — or  that  pcssibly  they  were  really  not  writ- 
ten till  centuries  after,  and  only  preserved  what  was  believed 
about  him  at  that  later  date — still  the  fact  would  remain 
that  they  take  us  by  traditions,  at  any  rate,  so  much  further 
back  into  the  past,  and  show  us  there  one  of  the  very  noblest 
stories  of  the  world; — for  that  is  what  the  story  of  Moses 
is.  Take  off  all  the  discount  you  will  for  exaggeration — I 
dare  say  the  numbers  are  immensely  exaggerated — suppose 
the  idea  of  his  having  been  led  by  God  speaking  to  him  to 
have  been  only  his  own  intense  consciousness  of  what  was 
best,  ascribed  to  God;  suppose  the  idea  of  his  having  been 
helped  by  miracles  to  have  been  only  his  own  reverent 


DR.  IIEPFORD'S  REPLY.  47 

impression,  ascribing  every  trouble  that  came  on  Egypt, 
and  every  favoring  circumstance  to  bis  own  people,  to  some 
purposed  and  direct  belp  from  God;  all  tbat  does  not  touch 
the  essence  of  the  story  of  Moses !  There  it  stands — how 
those  Hebrews  through  many  generations  had  sunk  into  the 
Pariah  and  Helot  class  of  that  great  rich  Egyptian  civiliz- 
ation; and  how  at  last  this  Moses  rose  up,  to  rally  them  to 
a  mighty  effort  to  get  right  away  into  some  other  land.  He 
had  been  somehow  brought  up  among  the  Egyptians,  trained 
in  the  sacred  city,  educated  among  the  priests — an  adopted 
son  of  Pharaoh's  daughter — but  he  had  given  it  all  up, 
identified  himself  with  his  down-trodden  people,  and  at  last, 
won  for  them  the  liberty  to  go!  And  they  went  out — out 
into  the  great  desert  waste.  What  does  it  matter  that  the- 
tradition  of  their  numbers  got  perhaps  enormously  exagger- 
ated ?  If  there  were  only  a  hundredth  part — thirty  thousand! 
instead  of  three  millions  in  all — there  were  quite  enough  to 
task  their  leader's  fortitude  to  its  utmost;  and  through  those 
books  we  have  at  least  very  living  glimpses  of  him,  in  his 
efforts  to  keep  them  from  grumbling  and  getting  disheart- 
ened ;  in  his  efforts  to  keep  them  true  to  his  simple  teach- 
ing of  the  one  Almighty  God;  in  his  lonely  hours  when  he 
was  listening  for  the  eternal  word,  and  shaping  his  best 
thoughts  which  he  believed  came  to  him  from  God,  into  laws 
for  his  people.  And  there  is  the  great  fact,  you  know — 
however  he  did  it — he  did  guide  and  lead  them  through  that 
long  migration,  and  at  last  brought  them  to  the  land  from 
which  their  fathers  had  gone  out  long  before,  and  bade  them 
go  in  and  possess  itl  And  that  multitude  whom  he  led  out 
of  Egypt  a  race  of  slaves,  servile  with  long  oppression,  at 
every  difficulty  talking  of  going  back,  he  had  in  that  forty 
years  knit  into  a  brave,  hardy,  fierce  race — who  did  go  in 
and  possess  the  land  and  became  the  progenitors  of  one  of 
the  world's  noblest  races.  That  is  the  story  of  Moses 
4 


48  MISTAKES  OF  LNGEESOLL. 

— just  the  barest  skeleton  of  it — taking  one,  the  largest, 
most  unmistakable  features;  and  I  say  again  there  is  no 
finer  story  in  history.  And  what  will  you  say  of  a  man  who 
will  make  fun  of  it? 

Why,  what  would  you  think  of  a  man  who  would  go 
around  the  country,  making  fierce  fun  of  Abraham  Lincoln, 
holding  up  his  gaunt,  lank  figure  to  ridicule,  burlesquing 
his  speeches,  denouncing  as  lies  some  of  those  quaint  little 
anecdotes,  and  holding  him  upas  a  fool  and  an  idiot?  And 
yet  that  glorious  work  that  makes  Lincoln's  name  dear — not 
to  Americans  only  but  to  the  lovers  of  freedom  and  of  man 
in  every  nation — that  work  of  his  was  only  the  modern 
counterpart  of  what  Moses  did  in  the  morning  of  the  world! 

But  the  Pentateuch  is  most  valuable,  not  for  the  light  it 
throws  upon  the  origin  of  a  people,  but  for  the  light  it 
throws  upon  the  origin  of  ideas.  In  the  teachings  of  Moses, 
in  the  religion  of  that  little  migrating  tribe,  by-and-by 
fighting  for  its  foothold  in  Palestine,  we  have  the  begin- 
ings  of  those  thoughts  from  which  have  sprung  the  three 
greatest,  most  living  religions  of  the  world — Judaism, 
Christianity  and  Mahommedanism.  Granted,  the  begin- 
nings are  only  rude,  is  that  any  reason  for  making  fun  of 
them?  What  would  you  think  of  a  man  who  should  take 
one  of  those  rude  urns  that  they  dig  out  of  the  mound  build- 
er's graves  and  put  it  side  by  side  with  some  beautiful  porce- 
lain of  to-day,  and  scoff  and  sneer  at  those  early  dwellers  on 
the  earth  because  the  best  decoration  they  could  make  was 
a  few  rude  scratches  in  the  clay  with  their  flint-knives? 

Already,  even  so  far  off,  the  idea  of  one  Almighty  God, 
that  which  the  priests  of  Egypt  held  as  a  sacred  mystery — 
if  they  did  hold  it — that  leader  of  the  Hebrews  taught  his 
people  as  the  truth  for  all,  and  the  truth  to  be  kept  ever- 
more before  them.  Already,  too,  in  the  old  world,  where 
every  race  shaped  out  its  thought  of  God  in  some  idol  form, 


DR.  HERFORD'S  REPLY.  49 

that  leader  was  giving  them  as  the  second  of  his  great  com- 
mands that  they  should  make  no  idol  images  at  all  to  wor- 
ship. Already,  too,  they  had  that  idea  of  a  God  of  Right- 
eousness !  True,  their  idea  of  righteousness  was  not  yet  very 
high,  but  the  best  they  knew  they  ascribed  to  God.  Where 
in  all  the  ancient  world  will  you  find  such  a  description  of 
Deity  as  that  which  Moses  brought  with  him  out  of  the  soli- 
tudes of  Sinai? — "The  Lord;  the  Lord  God,  merciful  and 
gracious,  long  suffering  and  abundant  in  goodness  and 
truth;  keeping  mercy  for  thousands,  bearing  with  iniquity, 
transgression  and  sin,  but  that  will  by  no  means  clear  the 
guilty." 

The  Mosaic  Religion  of  Humanity. 

NOT  is  this  divine  side  of  that  old  Hebrew  religion  all. 
Mr.  Ingersoll  is  very  strong  on  the  religion  of  humanity. 
Indeed,  that  is  the  only  real  religion,  he  says.  "Well,  where 
did  the  religion  of  humanity  begin  ?  Why,  it  began  there 
— among  those  same  old  Hebrews.  The  religion  of  a  truer 
thought  of  God  and  of  a  better  thought  of  man  went  to- 
gether even  in  their  beginnings,  as  they  did  afterward  when 
they  both  reached  their  culmination  together  in  Christ,  with 
His  great  teaching  of  love  to  God  and  love  to  man. 

Mr.  Ingersoll,  however,  has  nothing  but  the  bitterest 
contempt  for  the  morality  of  the  Pentateuch,  because  it  is 
behind  the  morality  of  to-day!  "  See,  you  are  better  than 
your  God,"  he  cries;  "for  four  thousand  years  ago  He  be- 
lieved in  polygamy,  and  you  don't!  "  The  truth  of  which 
simply  is  that  four  thousand  years  ago  polygamy  existed 
among  the  Jews,  as  everywhere  else  on  earth  then,  and  even 
their  prophets  do  not  come  to  the  idea  of  its  being  wrong. 
But  what  is  there  to  be  indignant  about  in  that?  Simply 
men — whom  Mr.  Ingersoll  regards,  in  other  lectures,  as 
Laving  come  up  from  the  brutes — had  then  got  only  so  far 


50  MISTAKES  OF  1NGERSOLL. 

in  their  ideas  of  marriage.  But  if  their  religion  is  a  good 
one,  what  do  you  expect  to  find  it  doing?  Altogether  al- 
tering, even  BO  early,  the  marriage  relation,  or  purifying 
and  elevating  it?  Surely  this  is  all  we  can  look  for,  and 
this  we  find.  I  know  that  Mr.  Ingersoll  says:  "There  is 
not  one  word  about  woman  in  the  Old  Testament,  except 
the  words  of  shame  and  humiliation."  Well,  though  he 
says  he  has  read  the  Bible  over  again  this  year,  I  can  only 
conclude  he  has  read  it  very  hurriedly  and  slightly,  for  not 
only  are  there  such  passages  as  that  of  Naomi  and  Ruth, 
the  Shunamite  woman,  Hannah,  the  mother  of  Samuel,  and 
that  most  beautiful  picture  at  the  close  of  the  book  of  Prov- 
erbs of  a  good  wife,  but  I  think  that  throughout  woman  is 
spoken  of  in  the  Bible,  not  as  the  slave,  but  as  the  compan- 
ion and  the  helpmate.  The  "  wise-hearted  women  "  share 
the  work  of  making  that  goodliest  of  the  tents  which  was  in 
the  desert  wanderings  to  be  the  tabernacle ;  Miriam,  the  sister 
of  Moses,  holds  the  place  of  a  prophetess,  and  other  prophet- 
esses we  read  of;  and  the  whole  law  of  marriage  in  the  Penta- 
teuch, with  its  stern  punishment  of  death  for  adultery,  either 
on  the  part  of  man  as  well  as  woman,  shows  the  process  of 
elevation  towards  that  higher  law  of  one  wife  and  one  husband 
which  had  become  universal  by  the  time  of  Christ. 

Or  take  the  slavery  question  again.  Slavery  was  univer- 
sal in  the  ancient  world.  Men  had  not  come  anywhere  to  a 
sense  of  any  inherent  wrongfulness  in  it  for  a  thousand 
years  or  two  after  the  time  of  Moses.  But  mark  where 
this  finer  humanity  of  the  Mosaic  religion  comes  in;  it  al- 
ready brings  glimpses  of  the  idea  of  an  inalienable  right  to 
liberty — though  not  a  perfect  sight  of  it.  The  law  of  the 
Pentateuch  abounds  with  laws  about  the  relation  of  master 
and  slave,  which,  as  compared  with  what  we  know  of  slavery, 
e.  g.)  among  the  Greeks  and  Romans  a  thousand  years  later, 
were  simply  a  marvel  of  noble  humanized  thought. 


DR.  HERFORD'S  REPLY.  51 

And  then  as  to  the  general  tone  and  character  of  that 
Mosaic  law.  Mr.  Ingersoll  pooh-poohs  the  Ten  Command- 
ments as  merely  what  men  knew  before;  knew  all  along. 
But  such  a  law  as  this:  "  Thou  shalt  not  have  in  thy  bag 
divers  weights,  a  great  and  a  small;  but  thou  shalt  have  a 
perfect  and  just  weight — a  perfect  and  just  measure  shalt 
thou  have — for  all  that  do  such  things,  and  all  that  do  un- 
righteously, are  an  abomination  unto  the  Lord  thy  God;" 
and  this:  "  If  a  man  shall  steal  an  ox  or  a  sheep  he  shall 
restore  five  oxen  for  an  ox  and  four  sheep  for  a  sheep; "  and 
this:  "Ye  shall  have  one  manner  of  law,  as  well  for  the 
stranger  as  for  one  of  your  own  country,  for  I  am  the  Lord 
your  God;  "  and  this:  "Thou  shalt  not  oppress  an  hired 
servant  that  is  poor  and  needy — whether  he  be  of  thy  breth- 
ren, or  of  the  strangers  that  are  in  the  land;  at  his  day  thou 
ehalt  give  him  his  hire;  neither  shall  the  sun  go  down  upon 
it,  for  he  is  poor  and  setteth  his  heart  upon  it."  There  is  a 
good  deal  of  the  religion  of  humanity  about  these,  isn't 
.there? 

And  other  laws  come  in  here  and  there  with  such  a  kind 
consideration  for  poverty  and  need.  "When  a  man  har- 
vested he  must  not  reap  the  corners  of  his  field,  nor  gather 
up  the  gleanings,  and  if  he  forgot  a  sheaf  and  left  it  in  the 
field  he  must  not  go  again  and  fetch  it.  "  Thou  shalt  leave 
them  for  the  poor  and  the  stranger."  And  this:  "  "When  a 
man  hath  taken  a  new  wife  he  shall  not  go  out  to  war} 
neither  shall  he  be  charged  with  any  business;  but  he  shall 
be  free  at  home  one  year  and  shall  cheer  up  his  wife  whom 
he  hath  taken."  And  even  in  regard  to  war — in  which  cer- 
tainly they  were  fierce  enough — what  a  gleam  of  kindnesg 
comes  in  in  that  command  that  when  they  were  besieging  a 
city  they  must  not  cut  down  the  fruit  trees  about  it  for 
their  war  purposes,  but  only  trees  that  they  knew  were  not 
for  fruit  Why,  I  might  go  on  for  an  hour  quoting  these 


52  MISTAKES  OF  INGERSOLL. 

more  merciful  laws  and  showing  you  the  large,  grand 
thoughts  of  duty  that  pervade  that  whole  system  which  the 
Jews  believed  had  been  given  to  them  by  Moses. 

But  there  is  nothing  really  to  fear.  For  the  moment 
many  may  be  led  to  throw  the  Bible  away,  and  to  give  up 
religion  as  the  weak  nonsense  he  so  scornfully  proclaims  it. 
Religion  will  abide  in  the  heart  of  man.  And  the  Bible 
will  stand  because  in  it  we  have  the  accumulated  utterance 
of  religion  in  its  best  beginnings  and  along  its  noblest  line 
of  development. 


THE  JEWISH  RABBI'S  REPLY.  5S 


TILE  JEWISH  EABBPS  EEPLY. 


WE  need  not  pray  for  Col.  Robert  IngersolPs  soul,  for  he 
says  he  has  none;  and  in  this  instance  we  are  bound  to  be- 
lieve him,  as  he  is  judge,  jury  and  witness  in  the  case;  and 
there  may  be  men  without  souls,  as  there  are  some  without 
conscience,  others  without  reason,  and  quite  a  number  with- 
out principle.  The  first  man  of  whom  the  Bible  says  that 
he  prayed,  was  Abraham.  He  prayed  for  Abimelech.  But 
Col.  Ingersoll,  we  suspect,  is  not  smitten  with  that  disease. 
He  prayed  for  the  wicked  people  of  Sodom  and  Gomorrah, 
to  which  class  belongs  no  American  citizen,  of  course,  as 
"  Mitchell's  Geography"  substantially  proves.  Jacob  prayed 
when  his  brother  Esau  approached  him  with  an  armed  force; 
and  the  Colonel  has  come  to  us  unarmed,  and  without  any 
force  except  a  few  harmless  agents  of  the  Boston  Lecture 
Bureau,  who  take  the  money,  show  the  show,  and  depart  in 
peace.  Moses  prayed  for  his  sister  Miriam  when  she  waa 
leprous,  but  Mr.  Ingersoll  is  no  woman,  and  his  excellent 
exterior  betokens  no  leprosy.  Joshua  prayed  to  make  the 
sun  and  moon  stand  still,  but  Mr.  Ingersoll  is  neither  the 
greater  nor  the  lesser  light,  and  to  the  best  of  our  knowledge 
nobody  wants  him  to  stand  still  at  any  place. 

Speaking  of  imagination,  it  reminds  me  that  Col.  Inger- 
soll  said  he  could  not  imagine  the  existence  of  a  God.  Im- 
agine God!  Any  professor  of  philosophy  would  faint  if  he 
was  told  that  illogical  expression.  How  can  God  be  im- 


M  MISTAKES  OF  INGERSOLL. 

agined?  Perhaps  one  of  Mr.  Ingersoll's  manufactured  gods 
could  be  imagined  in  a  disorderly  imagination,  as  only  phys- 
ical objects  of  nature  or  combinations  thereof  could  be  im- 
agined— nothing  else.  What  kind  of  a  god  would  that  bo 
which  could  be  submitted  to  the  imagination  of  a  man  with- 
out a  soul?  It  must  be  the  miniature  or  pocket  edition  of 
an  idol,  made  by  man,  such  as  Col.  Ingersoll  purchases  and 
exhibits  to  amuse  tall  babies.  It  must  be  that  sort  of  far- 
cical gods  which  he  describes  in  his  burlesques.  lie  is  not 
the  first  quack  who  would  not  take  his  own  medicines, 
although  he  is  certainly  among  reasoners  the  first  who  would 
imagine  Deity,  for  none  tries  to  imagine  that  which  reason 
-only  can  grasp;  none  will  permit  himst^f  to  be  led  astray 
by  imagination  where  pure  reflection  only  can  reach  the 
aim. 

The  perversion  of  ideas  springs  from  a  mistake  about 
Moses.  A  god  or  gods  have  been  fabricated  at  the  expense 
of  Moses,  until  each  little  priest  had  his  own  snug  little  god 
that  could  be  used  as  the  Crusader's  emblem  or  the  license 
of  the  auto-da-fe,  to  massacre  and  glut  in  human  gore,  or 
the  frail  woman's  last  resort  of  love  to  make  honest  men 
out  of  rogues,  pure  souls  out  of  the  dregs  of  hell.  The  god 
or  gods  variously  depicted,  miscellaneously  described,  and 
promiscuously  applied  become  objects  of  imagination,  hence 
also  of  the  farce.  The  mistake  is  that  Moses  was  charged 
with  all  the  follies  of  theological  jugglers  and  sophistical 
bummers.  The  God  whom  Moses  taught  is  emphatically 
the  God  whom  no  man  can  see  and  live, — the  Great  I  Am, 
who  is  the  I,  the  Ego,  the  Subject  of  the  Universe,  the  law, 
the  life,  the  love  and  the  intellect  of  the  cosmos,  the  Eternal 
Jehovah,  essence  itself,  and  the  absolute  substance,  in  whom 
all  things  are  as  all  objects  of  a  man's  tender  love  are  in  his 
aoul,  of  whom  all  things  came  and  into  whom  all  return. 
This  is  not  a  God  fabricated  by  man,  hence  lie  could  not 


THE  JEWISH  EABBVS  REPLY.  65 

be  imagined  by  man,  as  no  man  can  imagine  a  being  supe- 
rior to  himself.  This  is  the  God  taught  by  Moses;  the  other 
gods  may  be  subjected  to  farce  and  ribaldry,  while  the  true 
Deity  is  too  sublime  even  for  the  pyrotechnical  displays  of 
Mr.  Ingersoll's  disentangled  humor.  It  is  a  mistake  about 
Moses  which  feeds  his  boiler  to  tweedle  the  rusted  think- 
apparatus  of  twaddlers.  The  God  of  Moses  is  too  great  for 
Mr.  Ingersoll;  he  only  deals  in  gods  which  can  be  imag- 
ined, and  in  speaking  of  mistakes  of  Moses  he  reverently 
passes  by  the  God  of  Moses.  The  man  is  not  as  bad  as  his 
reputation. 

I  maintain  that  Col.  Robert  Ingersoll  is  not  half  as  bad 
as  his  reputation.  The  man  was  persecuted  by  his  country- 
men, was  defeated  in  his  political  aspirations  by  church- 
members,  and  thinks  the  Presbyterians  have  done  it.  He 
is  a  man  of  prominent  talents,  belonging  to  the  better  class; 
all  on  account  of  the  Presbyterians,  he  was  teased,  perse- 
cuted, and  wounded  in  his  pride,  and  so  he  became  a  public 
lecturer.  But  business  is  business;  if  one  wants  to  make 
money  he  must  know  how.  He  could  imagine  that  people 
go  to  the  circus  to  see  the  clown,  to  the  theater  to  laugh 
over  the  comedian.  People  want  fun  to  be  amused,  alcohol 
to  force  the  blood  to  the  brain,  to  fill  up  the  vacuum.  He 
•could  see  that  earnest  men  who  reason  on  principles  would 
not  take  with  the  masses.  Aware  of  his  own  talents  as  a 
humorist  and  an  orator,  of  the  scarcity  of  humorists  in  this 
country,  and  the  plenitude  of  slang,  low  comedy,  and  uncul- 
tivated taste,  he  could  only  choose  the  career  which  he  did 
choose — a  career  of  ribaldry,  to  laugh  over  everything  holy, 
to  sneer  alike  at  human  follies,  frailties,  virtue  and  piety; 
and  as  a  business  man  he  has  chosen  well — he  makes  plenty 
of  money  and  hurts  nobody.  A  moral  effect  he  will  never 
have  upon  anybody,  because  there  is  no  moral  force  in  his 
burlesque.  He  is  no  Thomas  Paine,  Thomas  Jefferson,  no 


56  MISTAKES  OF  INGERSOLL. 

Yoltaire,  Strauss,  Feuerbach,  or  even  a  Tleinrich  Heine, 
because  he  lacks  the  research,  the  erudition,  the  systematical 
learning,  and  the  moral  backbone  of  either  of  them.  lie 
will  not  set  Rome  on  fire  in  order  to  sing  from  his  balcony  the 
destruction  of  Troy;  he  lacks  the  fire  and  the  torch.  It  i& 
all  pyrotechnical  ribaldry,  which  sweeps  away  many  a  con- 
sumptive superstition  and  laughs  many  a  prejudice  out  of 
existence;  but  truth  takes  care  of  itself.  Let  the  man, 
alone;  he  is  better  than  his  reputation. 

Yon  think,  perhaps,  I  ought  to  be  very  angry,  because 
the  gentleman  spoke  of  the  mistakes  of  Moses,  and  ridiculed 
the  great  lawgiver  of  the  Jews.  Let  me  tell  you  first,  any- 
thing over  which  you  laugh  leaves  no  particular  impression 
behind.  That  which  goes  not  though  the  avenues  of  reason 
or  the  depth  of  the  moral  sentiment  in  a  short  time  proves 
effectless.  Scorn  is  a  terrible  weapon  to  achieve  moment- 
ary success,  but  it  is  worse  than  worthless  after  a  second 
sober  thought  or  a  healthy  action  of  the  feelings.  Then  let 
me  say,  the  theology  of  Moses  is  certainly  beyond  the  reach 
of  Col.  Ingersoll,  for  ho  is  no  reasoner;  he  can  spit,  but  he 
could  not  think  with  philosophical  minds.  Ho  never 
studied  through  or  even  read  any  of  the  philosophical 
systems  of  Germany,  England,  or  France;  nor  has  he  the 
ability  to  do  it.  He  is  no  naturalist  of  any  description,  has 
never  troubled  himself  about  any  specialty  thereof,  and  so 
he  talks  about  matters  and  things  in  general  as  is  the 
American  custom,  what  the  Germans  call  Wurst-philosophie, 
good  enough  as  jokes  or  for  beer-house  reasonings.  When. 
he  speaks  of  the  infinite  he  becomes  too  ludicrous  for  any- 
thing, especially  for  men  of  thought  to  make  anything  out 
of  it.  lie  will  not  upset  the  theology  of  Moses. 

The  law  of  Moses  is  also  secured  against  the  Colonel's- 
possible  attacks.  He  will  commence  no  trouble  with  his- 
Blackstone  or  Hugo  Grotius,  or  the  other  writers  on  lav 


THE  JEWISH  RABBI'S  REPLY.  57 

who  maintain  that  all  law  rests  upon  the  Mosaic  legisla- 
tion. 

Thirty -five  hundred  years  of  history,  and  the  common 
consent  of  the  civilized  world  at  this  end  of  the  nineteenth 
century,  are  a  little  too  much  for  any  man  to  upset.  He 
says  lie  could  write  a  better  Decalogue  than  Moses  did,  but 
that  is  said  only — he  is  not  going  to  do  it;  he  will  not  even 
add  a  category  of  law  to  the  ten. 

Well,  then,  if  he  is  not  the  man  to  attack  successfully  the 
theology  or  jurisprudence  of  Moses,  I  have  no  cause  to  ob- 
ject to  his  lectures.  He  ridicules  Bible  stories,  but  that 
concerns  literalists  only,  not  us.  If  all  the  stories  of  the 
Pentateuch  be  ridiculed,  denied,  or  otherwise  disposed  of,  it 
does  not  change  an  iota  in  the  jurisprudence  or  theology  of 
Moses.  Let  the  literalists  take  up  that  part;  it  does  not 
concern  us  so  very  much. 

Here,  again,  is  a  point  which  makes  me  feel  bad  and  badly 
disposed  to  the  eloquent  humorist.  Why  does  he  continu- 
ally repeat  that  which  others  have  said  often  before  him; 
why  does  he  not  hit  upon  something  original?  He  re- 
hearses old  rags  in  new  shoddy,  and  that  is  unworthy  of  a 
man  who  has  any  pride  about  him.  He  does  sometimes 
worse  than  that;  he  ignores  his  opponents,  which  no  honest 
man  must  do.  He  speaks  a  long  yarn  about  the  history  of 
creation,  always  assuming  an  air  of  originality,  without 
Laving  the  honesty  of  mentioning  even  Dr.  J.  W.  Dawson's 
work,  "  The  Origin  of  the  World,"  which  upsets  his  whole 
twaddle.  It  is  dishonest  to  make  people  believe  that  a 
thing  said  is  indisputable,  when  it  has  been  completely 
upset. 

He  appeals  to  the  apotheosis  of  labor  to  impeach  Moses, 
because  it  said  in  the  Genesis  that  God  cursed  man.  "In 
the  sweat  of  thy  brow  shalt  thou  eat  bread;"  and  labor  is  a 
blessing  .to  man.  Did  all  Socialists  clap  hands?  If  not, 


58  MISTAKES  OF  INGERSOLL. 

some  must  have  thought  this  is  the  language  of  a  dema- 
gogue, who  is  either  a  hypocrite  or  a  self-deluded  man.  La- 
bor and  hard  labor  are  two  different  things,  and  the  "  sweat 
of  thy  brow  "  points  to  hard  labor,  which  rests  like  a  curs& 
upon  the  poor  man,  and  is  the  severest  punishment  imposed 
on  the  criminal  condemned  to  hard  labor. 

He  talks  about  the  creation  of  woman  like  an  ignorant 
man  who  has  not  the  remotest  idea  of  the  difficulties  among 

zj 

biologists,  considering  the  differentiation  of  man  and  the 
origin  of  sexes.  So  he  talks  about  the  littleness  of  the  ark 
and  smites  Charles  Darwin  in  the  face,  instead  of  saying 
this  proves  Darwin's  theory  on  the  origin  of  species.  TL& 
scoffs  at  the  God  who  destroyed  His  own  children  and 
undertakes  to  teach  the  Colonel  of  Peoria  how  he  should 
educate  his.  It  all  depends  upon  what  kind  of  children  one 
wishes  to  bring  up.  Usually  every  parent  brings  up  his  own 
kind.  God  wanted  them  to  bring  up  God-like  children,  and 
when  they  would  not  do  it,  he  got  them  out  of  the  way  in 
preference  to  destroying  human  freedom  or  perpetuating 
wickedness.  If  it  is  only  to  bring  up  such  children  as  Rob- 
ert Ingersoll,  of  Peoria,  111.,  no  such  stringency  is  necessary. 
Musquashes  grow  spontaneously  in  abundance.  Then  he- 
speaks  about  600  pigeons  a  day  for  three  priests,  and  does 
not  know  that  there  were  no  pigeons  in  the  wilderness,  and 
the  Mosaic  sacrificial  polity  was  not  introduced  till  Joshua 
had  taken  the  Land  of  Canaan,  and  then  there  were  more 
priests  than  there  are  to-day  humorists  in  America,  for 
Joshua  gave  them  quite  a  number  of  cities,  and  I  would 
not  be  astonished  if  those  American  humorists  could  eat 
more  pigeons  than  they  can  do  good  in  this  world. 

But  what  is  the  use  to  speak  of  the  mistakes  of  Moses? 
Speak  of  the  mistakes  about  Moses.  Did  Moses  write  the 
Genesis?  Says  Col.  Ingersoll,  "I  do  not  know;"  and  he 
does  not  know  a  great  many  other  things.  Did  Moses  write- 


THE  JEWISH  RABBI'S  REPLY.  59 

the  historical  portions  of  the  Pentateuch?  Says  the  Illinois 
Colonel  again,  "I  do  not  know."  If  he  has  written  all  that, 
did  the  translators  and  commentators  which  the  Colonel 
read  represent  correctly  the  ideas  of  Moses?  "  Do  n't  know," 
says  the  Colonel.  If  those  writers  do  represent  the  matter 
correctly,  have  those  points  which  the  Colonel  ridicules 
never  been  discussed  and  refuted?  "Do  n't  know,"  says  the 
Colonel;  and  decent  men  must  not  curse;  still  they  are 
permitted  to  say, "  Why  do  you  talk  of  matters  of  which  you 
know  so  preciously  little?  That  is  all  excusable,  however, 
in  this  case.  The  humorous  and  eloquent  gentleman  is  out 
on  a  lecture  tour,  and  wants  to  succeed.  This  can  be  done 
by  reckless  ribaldry  only.  It  makes  no  difference  whether 
Hell  or  gods,  Devil  or  Moses,  Pope  or  Presbyterian  church 
— anything  that  will  pay  must  be  pressed  into  the  service. 
The  Colonel's  field  is  small;  he  has  no  great  choice  of  sub- 
jects, and  he  must  take  the  first  best  to  ridicule  it  and 
make  it  pay.  lie  has  that  particular  talent,  and  could  not 
do  the  same  work  in  another  field.  He  cannot  criticise 
Aristotle  and  Emanuel  Kant  and  make  it  pay,  because  he 
cannot  read  them.  lie  cannot  ridicule  Carlyle  or  Stuart 
Mill,  because  he  cannot  understand  them.  So  he  picks  up 
some  small  stories  which  the  children  know,  and  dishes  them 
up  in  his  own  humoristic  way  for  the  amusement  of  big 
babies.  The  man  understands  his  business  to  the  T.  I 
tell  you,  he  is  not  as  bad  as  his  reputation.  I  beg  a  thou- 
sand pardons  of  Col.  Robert  Ingersoll  if  I  have  wronged 
him.  I  did  not  mean  to  make  fun  of  him  any  way. 


[Photographed  by  Mosher-l 


DR.  GIBSON'S  EEPLT. 


DE.  GIBSON'S  EEPLT.* 


UNHAPPILY,  the  attention  of  Bible  students  has  been  aj- 
most  exclusively  directed  to  certain  difficulties.  These  difi 
ficulties  all  arise,  as  it  seems  to  me,  from  three  sources,  and 
the  Bible  is  not  to  blame  for  any  of  them.  First  source: 
treating  the  passage  as  if  it  were  history,  whereas  it  is  apoc- 
alypse. Second  source:  taking  it  as  intended  to  teach  sci- 
ence, especially  astronomical  and  geological  science.  Third 
source  of  difficulty:  the  mistakes  of  translators.  For  exam- 
ple, the  unfortunate  word  firmament  continually  comes  to 
the  front  as  one  of  the  "  mistakes  of  Moses."  Strange  that 
a  Latin  word  should  be  a  mistake  of  Moses!  Did  Moses 
know  Latin?  Did  he  ever  write  the  letters  f,  i,  r,  m,  etc.? 
Not  only  is  the  word  "firmament"  not  in  the  Hebrew 
Bible,  but  it  does  not  represent  the  Hebrew  word  at  all. 
The  word  firmament  means  something  strong,  solid.  The 
Hebrew  word  for  which  it  is  an  unfortunate  translation, 
signifies  something  that  is  very  thin,  extended,  spread  out; 
just  the  best  word  that  could  be  chosen  to  signify  the  at- 
mosphere. 

Then  there  is  the  word  "  whales,"  that  Professor  Huxley 
made  so  merry  over  a  year  ago.  But  the  Hebrew  does  not 
eay  whales.  The  Hebrew  word  refers  to  great  sea  monsters, 
and  is  just  the  very  best  word  the  Hebrew  language  affords 
to  describe  such  animals  as  the  plesiosaurus  and  ichthyo- 
saurus and  other  creatures  that  abounded  in  the  time  prob- 

•Portions  of  this  reply  receutlv  apnenred  In  the  daily  press  signed  "CANDOB:" 
other  portions  were  selected  by  the  Editor  from  his  new  work,  Just  published  by 
Haudolph  <5i  to,,  New  York,  enuued  "The  Ages  Before  Moses." 


62  MISTAKES  OF  INGEBSOLL. 

ably  referred  to  there.  Let  us  only  guard  against  these 
three  sources  of  error,  and  we  shall  not  find  many  diffi- 
culties. If  we  would  only  avoid  the  mistakes  of  Moses* 
critics,  we  would  not  show  our  ignorance  by  talking  about 
the  mistakes  of  Moses. 

We  have  said  that  almost  everybody  knows  about  the 
difficulties,  but  how  few  are  there  comparatively  that  know 
about  the  wonderful  harmonies?  So  much  is  said  and  writ- 
ten about  the  difficulties,  that  many  have  the  idea  that  the 
narrative  is  full  of  difficulties — nothing  but  difficulties  in  it 
— nothing  that  agrees  with  science  as  we  know  it  now; 
whereas,  when  we  look  at  it,  we  find  the  correspondencies 
most  wonderful  all  the  way  through.  Let  us  look  at  a  few 
of  them.  And  first,  the  absence  of  dates.  The  fact  is  very 
noteworthy  that  there  is  such  abundance  of  space  left  for  the 
long  periods,  not  till  quite  recently  demanded  by  science. 
And  this  does  not  depend  on  any  theory  of  day-periods;  for 
those  who  still  hold  to  the  literal  days,  find  all  the  room  re- 
quired before  the  first  day  is  mentioned.  Not  six  thousand 
years  ago,  but  "  in  the  beginning."  How  grand  and  how 
true  in  its  vagueness. 

Another  negative  characteristic  worth  noticing  here  is  the 
absence  of  details  where  none  are  needed.  For  example, 
there  is  almost  nothing  said  in  detail  about  the  heavens. 
What  is  said  about  the  heavens  in  addition  to  the  bare  fact 
of  creation,  is  only  in  reference  to  the  earth,  as,  for  exam- 
ple, when  the  sun  and  moon  are  treated  of,  not  as  separate 
j  worlds,  but  only  in  their  relation  to  this  earth  as  giving 
.light  to  it  and  affording  measurements  of  time.  There  i& 
no  attempt  to  drag  in  the  spectroscope! 

Ingersoll  Betrays  His  Ignorance. 

A  certain  infidel  lately  seemed  to  think  he  had  made  a 
point  against  the  Bible  by  remarking  that  the  author  of  it 


DR.  GIBSON'S  REPLY.  63 

had  compressed  the  astronomy  of  the  universe  into  five 
(vords.  Just  think  of  the  ignorance  this  betrays.  It  pro- 
ceeds on  the  assumption  that  the  author  of  this  apocalypse 
intended  to  teach  the  world  the  astronomy  of  the  universe; 
and  then,  of  course,  it  would  have  been  a  very  foolish  thing 
for  him  to  discuss  the  whole  subject  in  five  words.  Whereas, 
in  this  very  reticence  we  have  a  note  of  truth.  If  this  work 
had  been  the  work  of  some  mere  cosmogonist,  some  theo- 
rist as  to  the  origin  of  the  universe,  he  would  have  been  sure 
to  have  given  us  a  great  deal  of  information  about  the  stars^ 
But  a  prophet  of  the  Lord  has  nothing  to  do  with  astrono- 
my as  such.  All  that  he  has  to  do  with  the  stars  is  to  make- 
it  clear  that  the  most  distant  orbs  of  light  are  included  in. 
the  domain  of  the  Great  Supreme,  and  this  he  can  do  as  welt 
in  five  words  as  in  five  thousand;  and  so,  wisely  avoiding- 
all  detail,  he  simply  says,  "  He  made  the  stars  also."  There 
was  danger  that  men  might  suppose  some  power  resident 
in  these  distant  stars  distinct  from  the  power  that  ruled  the 
earth.  lie  would  have  them  to  understand  that  the  same 
God  that  rules  over  this  little  earth,  rules  to  the  uttermost 
bounds  of  the  great  universe.  And  this  great  truth  he  lays 
on  immovable  foundations  by  the  sublimely  simple  words, 
"  He  made  the  stars  also."  But  passing  from  that  which 
is  merely  negative,  see  how  many  positive  harmonies  there 
are. 

Harmony  of  Science  and  Genesis. 

First,  there  is  the  fact  of  a  beginning.  The  old  infidel 
objection  used  to  be  that  "  all  things  have  continued  as  they 
were  from  the  beginning  of  the  creation."  Nobody  pre- 
tends to  take  that  position  now  that  science  points  so  clearly 
to  beginnings  of  everything.  You  can  trace  back  man  to 
his  beginning  in  the  geological  cycles.  You  can  trace  back 
mammals  to  their  beginning;  birds,  fishes,  insects  to  their 
beginnings;  vegetation  to  its  beginning;  rocks  to  their 
5 


64  MISTAKES  OF  INGERSOLL. 

beginning.     The   general   fact  of  a  genesis  is  immovably 
established  by  science. 

Secondly,  u  The  heavens  and  the  earth."  N"ote  the  order 
Though  almost  nothing  is  said  about  the  heavens,  yet  what 
is  said  is  not  at  all  in  conflict  with  what  we  now  know  about 
them.  We  know  now  that  the  earth  is  not  the  center  of 
the  universe.  Look  forward  to  Genesis  iv.  2,  and  you  will 
find  the  transition  to  the  reverse  order — quite  appropriate 
there,  as  we  shall  see  in  the  next  lecture;  but  here,  where 
the  genesis  of  all  things,  the  origin  of  the  universe,  is  the 
subject,  it  is  not  the  earth  and  the  heavens,  but  "  in  the 
beginning  God  created  the  heavens  and  the  earth." 
t  Thirdly,  there  is  the  original  chaos.  "  The  earth  was 
without  form  and  void."  Turn  to  the  early  pages  of  any 
good  modern  scientific  book,  that  attempts  to  set  forth  the 
genesis  of  the  earth  from  a  scientific  standpoint,  and  you 
will  find  just  this  condition  described.  Observe,  too,  in 
passing,  how  carefully  the  statement  is  limited  to  the  earth. 
The  universe  was  not  chaotic  then. 

Fourthly,  the  work  of  creation  is  not  a  simultaneous,  but 
an  extended  one.  If  the  author  had  been  guessing  or 
theorizing,  he  would  have  been  much  more  likely  to  hit  on 
the  idea  of  simultaneous,  than  successive  creation.  But  the 
idea  of  successive  creation  is  now  proved  by  science  to  be 
true. 

Fifthly,  there  is  a  progressive  development,  and  yet  not 
a  continuous  progression  without  any  drawbacks.  There 
are  evenings  and  mornings;  just  what  science  tells  us  of 
the  ages  of  the  past.  Here  it  is  worth  while  perhaps  to 
notice  the  careful  use  of  the  word  "  created."  An  objec- 
tion has  been  made  to  the  want  of  continuity  in  the  so-called 
orthodox  doctrine  of  creation,  the  orthodox  doctrine  being 
supposed  to  be  that  of  fresh  creation  at  every  point.  Hut 
the  Bible  is  not  responsible  for  many  "  fresh  creations." 


DR.  GIBSON'S  REPLY.  65 

The  word  "  created  "  is  only  used  three  times  in  the  record.  \ 
First,  as  applied  to  the  original  creation  of  the  universe, 
possibly  in  the  most  embryonic  state.  "  In  the  beginning 
God  created  the  heavens  and  the  earth."  Next,  in  connec- 
tion with  the  introduction  of  life  (v.  2),  and  last,  in  refer- 
ence to  the  creation  of  man  (v.  27).  In  no  other  place  is 
anything  said  about  direct  creation.  It  is  rather  making, 
appointing,  ordering,  saying  "Let  there  be."  "Let  the 
waters  bring  forth,"  etc.  Now,  is  it  not  a  significant  fact 
that  these  three  points  where,  and  where  alone,  the  idea  of 
absolute  creation  is  introduced,  are  just  the  three  points  at 
which  the  great  apostles  of  continuity  find  it  impossible  to  / 
make  their  connections?  You  will  not  find  any  one  that  is 
able  to  show  any  other  origin  for  the  spirit  of  man  than  the 
Creator  Himself.  You  cannot  find  any  one  that  is  able  to 
show  any  other  origin  of  animal  life  than  the  Creator  Him- 
self. There  have  been  very  strenuous  eiforts  made  a  great 
many  times  to  show  that  the  living  may  originate  from  the 
not-living;  but  all  these  eiforts  have  failed.  And  the  origin 
of  matter  is  just  as  mysterious  as  the  origin  of  life.  No 
other  origin  can  be  even  conceived  of  the  primal  matter  of 
the  universe  than  the  fiat  of  the  great  Creator.  Thus  we 
find  the  word  "  creation "  used  just  at  the  times  when 
modern  science  tells  us  it  is  most  appropriate. 

Sixthly,  the  progression  is  from  the  lower  to  the  higher. 
An  inventor  would  have  been  much  more  likely  to  guess 
that  man  was  created  first,  and  afterward  the  other  creatures 
subordinate  to  him.  But  the  record  begins  at  the  bottom 
of  the  scale  and  goes  up,  step  by  step,  to  the  top:  again, 
just  what  geolouy  tells  us.  All  these  are  great  general 
correspondencies;  but  we  might, 

Seventhly,  go  into  details  and  find  harmonies  even  there, 
all  the  way  through.  Take  the  fact  of  light  appearing  on 
the  first  day.  The  Hebrew  word  for  "  light "  is  wide  enough 


66  MISTAKES  OF  INGEKSOLL. 

to  cover  the  associated  phenomena  of  heat  and  electricity, 
and  are  not  these  the  primal  forces  of  the  universe?  Again, 
it  used  to  be  a  standard  difficulty  with  sceptics  that  light 
was  said  to  exist  before  the  sun  was  visible  from  the  earth. 
Science  here  has  come  to  the  rescue,  and  who  doubts  it  now? 
It  is  very  interesting  to  see  a  distinguished  geologist  like 
Dana  using  this  very  fact  that  light  is  said  to  have  existed 
before  the  sun  shone  upon  the  earth  as  a  proof  of  the  divine 
origin  of  this  document,  on  the  ground  that  no  one  would 
have  guessed  what  must  have  seemed  so  unlikely  then.  So 
much  for  the  progress  toward  the  Bible  which  science  lias 
made  since  the  day  when  a  sceptical  writer  said  of  the 
Mosaic  narrative,  "  It  would  still  be  correct  enough  in  great 
principles  were  it  not  for  one  individual  oversight  and  one 
unlucky  blunder! " — the  oversight  being  the  solid  firmament 
(whose  oversight?),  and  the  blunder,  light  apart  from  the 
sun  (whose  blunder?). 

I  have  spoken  already  about  the  words  "  created "  and 
"  made,"  in  relation  to  the  discriminating  use  of  them. 
This  word  raqia,  too,  how  admirable  it  is  to  express  the 
tenuity  of  our  atmosphere,  especially  as  contrasted  with  the 
clumsy  words  used  by  the  enlightened  Greeks  (stereoma) 
the  noble  Romans  (firmamentum),  and  even  by  learned 
Englishmen  of  the  nineteenth  century  (firmament)!  And 
not  to  dwell  on  mere  words,  as  we  well  might,  look  at  the 
general  order  of  creation:  vegetation  before  animal  life, 
birds  and  fishes  before  mammals,  and  all  the  lower  animals 
before  man.  Is  not  that  just  the  order  you  find  in  geology? 
More  particularly,  while  man  is  last  he  is  not  created  on  a 
separate  day.  He  comes  in  on  the  sixth  day  along  with  the 
higher  animals,  yet  not  in  the  beginning,  but  toward  the 
close  of  the  period.  Again,  just  what  geology  tells  us. 


DR.  GIBSON'S  REPLY.  67 

The   Harmony  of  Genesis  and   Science,  not  the   Result  of 
Guess  "Work,  but  of  Inspiration. 

These  are  only  some  of  the  many  wonderful  harmonies 
between  this  old  revelation  and  modern  science.  I  would 
like  to  see  the  doctrine  of  chances  applied  to  this  problem, 
to  determine  what  probability  there  would  be  of  a  mere 
guesser  or  inventor  hitting  upon  so  many  things  that  cor- 
respond with  what  modern  science  reveals.  I  don't  believe 
there  would  be  one  chance  in  a  million!  Is  it  not  far 
harder  for  a  sensible  man  to  believe  that  this  wonderful 
apocalypse  is  the  fruit  of  ignorance  and  guess-work,  than 
that  it  is  the  product  of  inspiration?  It  is  simply  absurd  to 
imagine  that  an  ignorant  man  could  have  guessed  so  hap- 
pily. Nay,  more.  Let  any  of  the  scientific  men  of  to-day 
set  themselves  down  to  write  out  a  history  of  creation  in  a 
space  no  larger  than  that  occupied  by  the  first  chapter  of 
Genesis  and  I  do  not  believe  they  could  improve  on  it  at  all. 
And  if  they  did  succeed  in  producing  anything  that  would 
pass  for  the  present,  in  all  probability  in  ten  years  it  would 
be  out  of  date.  Our  apocalypse  of  creation  is  not  only  bet- 
ter than  could  be  expected  of  an  uninspired  man  in  the 
days  of  the  world's  ignorance,  but  it  is  better  than  Tyndall, 
or  Huxley,  or  Ilaeckel  could  do  yet.  If  they  think  not,  let 
them  take  a  single  sheet  of  paper  and  try! 

. It  is  of  great  importance  to  remember  that  the  sym- 
bolism attaches  to  the  form,  and  not  to  the  substance  of  the 
history.  To  call  this  whole  story  of  the  Fall  a  mere  alle- 
gory, is  to  take  away  from  it  all  historical  reality.  Let  us 
•distinguish  carefully  between  the  reality  of  the  history, 
which  is  a  very  important  thing,  and  the  literalily  of  it, 
which  is  of  minor  importance.  It  is  very  unfortunate  that 
eo  much  time  is  often  spent  upon  the  mere  letter,  regardless 
of  the  warning  of  the  great  apostle:  "The  letter  killeth, 


68  MISTAKES  OF  INGERSOLL. 

but  the  spirit  givetli  life.  This  accounts  for  nine-tenths  of 
the  difficulties  people  have  about  it.  Suppose  a  person, 
seeing  a  cocoanut  for  the  first  time,  and  being  told  it  was 
good  for  food,  should  spend  all  his  time  gnawing  away  at 
the  shell,  and  never  get  at  the  kernel.  No  wonder  of  his 
verdict  should  be.  it  is  not  fit  to  eat.  So  you  will  find  that 
most  of  the  people  who  have  insuperable  difficulties  with 
the  Bible  are  those  who  are  busying  themselves  all  the  time 
about  the  shell  and  never  get  hold  of  the  kernel.  If  they 
could  only  seize  the  kernel  they  would  so  readily  see  the 
beauty  and  enjoy  the  taste,  and  find  the  use  of  it;  and  then, 
perhaps,  they  would  begin  to  see  some  beauty  and  some 
usefulness  in  the  shell  too.  "  The  letter  killeth,  but  the 
Spirit  giveth  life." 

A  very  good  illustration  of  this  is  found  in  the  fifteenth 
verse  of  the  third  chapter,  where  we  read  about  "  the  seed 
of  the  woman  bruising  the  head  of  the  serpent."  The  liter- 
alists  get  nothing  more  out  of  it  than  a  declaration  that  in 
time  to  come  serpents  will  annoy  the  descendants  of  Eve  by 
biting  at  their  heels,  and  on  the  other  hand,  the  descendants 
of  Eve  will  destroy  serpents  by  crushing  their  heads!  The 
mere  shell  of  the  thing  manifestly.  The  reality,  as  pictured 
there,  is  of  a  great  conflict  to  go  on  throughout  all  these 
ages  of  development;  a  great  conflict  between  the  forces  of 
good  on  the  one  hand,  and  the  forces  of  evil  on  the  other. 
Of  this  conflict  the  issue  is  not  doubtful.  There  is  to  be 
serious  trouble  all  the  while  from  the  forces  of  evil,  but  in 
the  end  these  forces  will  be  crushed.  There  is  One  coming 
— a  descendant  of  this  same  woman,  called  here  "  the  seed 
of  the  woman" — who  will  at  last  "bruise  the  head  of  the 
serpent,"  and  gain  the  victory,  and  bring  in  that  glorious 
era  when  sin  and  suffering  and  pain  and  death  shall  have 
all  rolled  away  into  the  past.  There  is  a  great  deal  more 
than  this  in  that  wonderful  verse — more  than  we  would 


DR.  GIBSON'S  REPLY.  69 

have  time  to  tell  though  we  spent  a  whole  hour  on  it.    "We 
only  refer  to  it  now  as  an  illustration. 

And  now,  what  matters  it  whether  you  take  the  "ser- 
pent "  that  tempted  Eve  to  be  a  real  and  literal  serpent,  or 
the  mere  (phenomenal)  form  of  a  serpent  assumed  by  the 
Spirit  of  Evil  for  the  purpose?  or  even  whether  the  serpent 
form  is  connected  with  the  old  style  of  pictorial  representa- 
tion? All  that  is  minor  and  subordinate.  There  is  no  use 
of  wasting  time  on  it.  All  we  want  to  be  sure  of  is  the 
truth,  that  there  was  a  tempter,  an  evil  spirit,  that  in  a 
seductive  form  tempted  our  first  parents  and  they  fell.  Let 
us  by  all  means  beware  of  allowing  our  time  to  be  frittered 
away  by  mere  trivial  questions  of  the  letter,  instead  of  mak- 
ing it  our  great  .aim  to  see  and  to  seize  the  great  spiritual 
truths  set  forth  in  this  old  and  simple  record. 

There  are  many  who  represent  this  book  of  the  Genera- 
tions as  a  second  edition  of  the  Genesis,  or  separate  account 
of  the  creation  ;  and  of  course  they  find  difficulty  in  compar- 
ing the  two.  All  their  difficulty,  as  we  shall  see,  comes  from 
their  not  understanding  the  passage  as  a  whole,  their  not 
perceiving  what  it  was  intended  to  teach.  It  will  help  us  to 
meet  this  difficulty  if  we  follow  the  same  order  of  ideas  as  in 
the  exposition  of  Genesis  i.,  viz.:  God,  Nature,  Man.  In  all 
we  shall  find  marked  differences.  But  these  differences,  in- 
stead of  presenting  any  difficulty,  will  have  their  reason 
made  abundantly  manifest. 


/God 
ii 


iifferent  name  for  God  introduced 
here.  All  through  the  Genesis  it  has  been  "  God  said," 
"God  made,"  "  God  created."  Now  it  is  invariably,  "Je- 
hovah God  "  (LORD  God  in  our  version).  And  this  is  the 
only  continuous  passage  in  the  Bible  where  the  combination 
is  used.  How  is  this  explained?  Very  easily.  In  the 


70  MISTAKES  OF  INGERSOLL. 

apocalypse  of  the  Genesis,  God  makes  Himself  known  sim- 
ply ^fts  Creator.  Sin  lias  not  yet  entered,  and  so  the  idea  of 
salvation  has  no  place.  In  this  passage  sin  is  coining  in, 
and  along  with  it  the  promise  of  salvation.  Now  the  name 
Jehovah  is  always  connected  with  the  idea  of  salvation.  It 
is  the  covenant  name.  It  is  the  name  which  indicates 
God's  special  relation  to  His  people,  as  their  Saviour  and 
Redeemer.  This  name  is  introduced  now,  because  God  is 
about  to  make  Himself  known  in  anew  character.  lie  ap- 
peared in  Genesis  simply  as  Creator.  lie  appears  now  in 
the  book  of  the  Generations  as  Redeemer;  and  so  we  get 
the  name  Jehovah  in  place  of  the  name  God.  But  lest  any 
one  should  suppose  from  the  change  of  name  that  there  is 
any  change  in  the  person;  lest  any  one  suppose  that  He 
who  is  to  redeem  us  from  sin  and  death,  is  a  different  being 
from  Him  who  created  the  heavens  and  the  earth,  the  two 
names  are  now  combined — Jehovah  God.  The  combination 
is  retained  throughout  the  entire  narrative  of  the  Fall  to 
make  the  identification  sure.  Thereafter  either  name  is 
used  by  itself  without  danger  of  error. 

Nature. 

Look  next  at  the  way  in  which  Nature  is  spoken  of  here. 
"When  you  look  at  it  aright,  you  find  there  is  no  repetition. 
Nature  in  the  Genesis  is  universal  nature.  God  created  all 
things.  But  here,  nature  comes  in,  as  it  has  to  do  immedi- 
ately with  Adam.  Now  see  the  effect  of  this.  It  at  once 
removes  difficulties,  which  many  speak  of  as  of  great  mag- 
nitude. 

In  the  first  place,  it  is  not  the  whole  earth  that  is  now 
epoken  of,  but  a  very  limited  district.  Our  attention  is 
narrowed  down  to  Eden,  and  the  environs  of  Eden,  a  limi- 
ted district  in  a  particular  part  of  the  earth.  Hence  the 
difficulty  about  there  not  being  rain  in  the  district  ("earth") 


DR.  GIBSON'S  REPLY.  71 

disappears.  Let  me  here  remind  you  once  or  all  that  the 
Hebrew  word  for  earth  and  for  land  or  district  is  the  same. 
See  Gen.  xii.,  1.,  where  the  word  is  twice  used,  translated 
"country"  and  "land." 

Again,  it  is  not  the  vegetable  kingdom  as  a  whole  that  is 
referred  to  in  the  fifth  verse,  but  onlv  the  agricultural  and 

*/  o 

horticultural  products.  The  words  "plant,"  "field"  and 
"grew"  (v.  5)  are  new  words,  not  found  in  the  creation 
record.*  In  Gen.  i.  the  vegetable  kingdom  as  a  whole  was 
spoken  of.  Now,  it  is  simply  the  cereals  and  garden  herbs, 
and  things  of  that  sort;  and  here  instead  of  coming  into  col- 
lision with  the  previous  narrative,  we  have  something  that 
corresponds  with  what  botanists  tell  us,  that  field  and  gar- 
den products  are  sharply  distinguished  in  the  history  of 
nature  from  the  old  flora  of  the  geological  epochs. 

In  the  same  way  it  is  not  the  whole  animal  kingdom  that 
is  referred  to  in  verse  nineteen,  but  only  the  domestic  ani- 
mals, those  with  which  man  was  to  be  especially  associated, 
and  to  which  he  was  very  much  more  intimately  related 
than  to  the  wild  beasts  of  the  field.  It  may  be  easy  to 
make  this  narrative  look  ridiculous,  by  bringing  the  wild 
beasts  in  array  before  Adam,  as  if  any  companionship  with 
them  were  conceivable.  But  when  we  bear  in  mind  that 
reference  is  made  here  to  the  domestic  animals,  there  is 
nothing  at  all  inappropriate  in  noticing  that  while  there  is  a 
certain  degree  of  companionship  possible  between  man  and 
eoine  of  those  animals,  as  the  horse  and  dog,  yet  none  of 
these  was  the  companion  he  needed. 

In  the  first  chapter  of  Genesis,  nature  is  the  great  theme. 
We  are  carried  over  universal  nature,  and  the  great  truth  is 
there  set  forth,  that  God  lias  created  all  things.  In  the  sec- 
ond chapter  of  Genesis,  man  is  the  great  theme,  and  conse- 


*  The  correct  translation  of  the  fifth  verse  is:     "  Now  no  plant  of  the 
field  was  yet  in  the  land,  and  no  herb  of  the  field  was  growing." 


72  MISTAKES  OF  INGERSOLL. 

"quently  nature  is  treated  of  only  as  it  circles  around  him, 
and  is  related  to  him.  This  sufficiently  accounls  for  the 
difference  between  the  two. 

Man. 

Passing  now  from  nature  to  Man,  we  find  again  a  marked 
difference.  In  Gen.  i.  we  are  told,  "  God  created  man  in 
His  own  image;  in  the  image  of  God  created  lie  him." 
And  here:  "The  Lord  God  formed  man  of  the  dust  of  the 
ground."  (ii.  7.)  Some  people  tell  as  there  is  a  contra- 
diction here.  Is  there  any  contradiction,  let  me  ask?  Are 
not  both  of  them  true?  Is  there  not  something  that  tells 
you  that  there  is  more  than  dust  in  your  composition?  Is 
there  not  something  in  you  that  tells  you,  you  are  related 
to  God  the  Creator?  When  you  hear  the  statement  that 
"  God  made  man  in  His  own  image,  is  there  not  a  response 
awakened  in  you — something  in  you  that  rises  up  and  says, 
It  is  true?  On  the  other  hand,  we  know  that  man's  body 
is  formed  of  the  dust  of  the  earth.  We  find  it  to  be  true 
in  a  more  literal  sense  than  was  formerly  siipposed,  now 
that  chemistry  discloses  the  fact  that  the  same  elements 
enter  into  the  composition  of  man's  body,  as  are  found  by 
analysis  in  the  "dust  of  the  ground." 

And  not  only  are  both  these  statements  true,  but  each  is 
appropriate  in  its  place.  In  the  first  account,  when  man's 
place  in  universal  nature  was  to  be  set  forth — man  as  he 
issued  from  his  Maker's  hand — was  it  not  appropriate  that 
his  higher  nature  should  occupy  the  foreground?  His  lower 
relations  are  not  entirely  out  of  sight  even  there,  for  he  is 
introduced  along  with  a  whole  group  of  animals  created  on 
the  sixth  day.  But  while  his  connection  with  them  is  sug- 
gested, that  to  which  emphasis  is  given  in  the  Genesis  is 
his  relation  to  his  Maker.  But  now  that  we  arc  going  to- 
hear  about  his  fall,  about  his  shame  and  degradation,  is  ii 


DR.  GIBSON'S  REPLY.  73 

not  appropriate  that  the  lower  rather  than  the  higher  part 
of  his  nature  should  be  brought  into  the  foreground,  inas- 
much as  it  is  there  that  the  danger  lies?  It  was  to  that  part 
•ef  his  nature  that  the  temptation  was  addressed;  and  so  we 
read  liere,  "  God  formed  man  of  the  dust  of  the  ground." 
Yet  here,  too,  there  is  a  hint  of  his  higher  nature,  for  it  is 
added,  "  He  breathed  into  his  nostrils  the  breath  of  life," 
or  as  we  have  it  in  another  passage,  "  The  inspiration  of  the 
Almighty  gave  him  understanding." 

In  this  connection  it  is  worth  while  to  notice  the  use  of 
the  words  ''created"  and  "formed."  "  God  created  man 
in  His  own  image."  So  far  as  man's  spiritual  and  immor- 
tal nature  was  concerned  it  was  a  new  creation.  On  the 
other  hand,  "God  formed  man  out  of  the  dust  of  the 
ground."  We  are  not  told  He  created  man's  body  out  of 
nothing.  We  are  told,  and  the  sciences  of  to-day  confirm 
it,  that  it  was  formed  out  of  existing  materials. 

'Woman. 

Then,  in  relation  to  Woman,  there  is  the  same  appropri- 
ateness in  the  two  narratives.  In  the  former  her  relations 
to  God  are  prominent:  "God  created  man  in  His  own  im- 
age. In  the  image  of  God  created  He  him;  male  and  fe- 
male created  He  them  " — man  in  His  image;  woman  in  His 
image.  In  the  latter,  it  is  not  the  relation  of  woman  to 
her  Maker  that  is  brought  forward,  but  the  relation  of  wo- 
man to  her  husband.  Hence  the  specific  reference  to  her 
organic  connection  with  her  husband. 

Here,  again,  it  is  very  easy  for  one  that  deals  in  literali^ 
ties  to  raise  difficulties,  forgetting  that  there  is  no  intention  \ 
here  to  detail  scientifically  the  process  of  woman's  forma-  \ 
tion,but  simply  to  indicate  that  she  is  organically  connected 
with  her  husband.     It  is  here  proper  to  remark  that  the  ren- 
dering "rib"  is  probably  too  specific.     The  word  is  more 


74  MISTAKES  OF  INGERSOLL. 

frequently  used  in  the  general  sense  of  "  side."  As  an  ev- 
idence that  there  is  no  intention  to  give  here  any  physio- 
logical information  as  to  the  origin  of  woman,  we  may  refer 
to  the  words  of  Adam :  "  This  is  now  bone  of  my  bone  and 
flesh  of  my  flesh.  She  shall  be  called  Woman,  because  she- 
was  taken  out  of  man."  And  now,  is  there  anything  irra- 
tional in  the  idea  that  woman  should  be  formed  out  of  man?' 
Is  there  anything  more  mysterious  or  inconceivable  in  the 
formation  of  woman  out  of  man,  than  in  the  original  form- 
ation of  man  out  of  dust?  Let  us  conceive  of  our  origin 
in  any  way  we  choose,  it  is  full  of  mystery.  Though  there- 
may  be  mystery  connected  with  what  is  said  in  the  Bible, 
there  will  be  just  as  much  mystery  connected  with  any  other 
account  you  try  to  give  of  it.  Matthew  Henry,  in  his 
quaint  and  half-humorous  way,  really  gets  nearer  to  the 
-true  spirit  of  the  narrative  than  any  physiological  inter- 
/preter  can,  when  he  makes  the  remark  that  some  of  you- 
/  may  be  familiar  with,  "  that  woman  was  taken  out  of  man, 
/  not  out  of  his  head  to  top  him,  nor  out  of  his  feet  to  be 
trampled  underfoot;  but  out  of  his  side  to  be  equal  to  him, 
under  his  arm  to  be  protected,  and  near  his  heart  to  be 
beloved."  Another  remark  of  his  is  worth  quoting.  Re- 
ferring to  the  fact  of  Adam's  being  first  formed  and  then. 
Eve,  and  the  claim  of  priority  and  consequent  superiority, 
as  made  on  his  behalf  by  the  apostle  Paul,  he  says :  "  If 
man  is  the  head,  she  is  the  crown — a  crown  to  her  husband, 
the  crown  of  the  visible  creation.  The  man  was  dust  re- 
fined, but  the  woman  was  dust  double-refined — one  remove 
further  from  the  earth." 

But,  Matthew  Henry  apart,  one  thing  is  certain,  that  this 
old  Bible  narrative,  while  it  has  not  done  that  which  it  was 
never  intended  to  do,  while  it  has  given  no  scientific  expla- 
nation of  either  man's  origin  or  woman's  origin,  has  never- 
theless accomplished  its  great  object.  It  has  given  woman. 


DR.  GIBSON'S  REPLY.  7& 

her  trne  place  in  the  world.  It  is  only  in  Bible  lands  that 
woman  has  her  trne  place;  and  it  is  only  there  that  marriage 
has  its  proper  sacredness.  Here  as  everywhere  else,  we  see 
the  practical  power  of  the  Bible.  It  was  not  written  to 
satisfy  curiosity,  but  to  save  and  to  bless;  and  most  salutary 
and  most  blessed  has  been  the  influence  of  these  earliest 
words  about  woman,  setting  forth  her  true  relation  to  man 
and  to  God,  to  her  earthly  husband  and  her  heavenly  Father. 

Mistakes   Respecting   Labor   and  Death,   Corrected. 

.  .  .  The  Bible  has  been  charged  with  representing  labor 
as  a  curse.  The  charge  is  not  true.  On  the  contrary,  we  are 
told  that  Adam  was  appointed  in  Eden  to  dress  the  garden 
and  keep  it.  The  law  of  labor  came  in  among  the  blessings 
of  Eden,  along  with  the  law  of  obedience  and  the  marriage 
law.  It  is  a  slander  on  the  Bible  to  say  that  it  represents 
labor  as  a  curse.  It  is  not  the  labor  that  is  the  curse.  It  is 
the  thorns  and  the  thistles.  It  is  the  hardness  of  the  labor. 
"  In  the  sweat  of  thy  brow  thou  shalt  eat  bread."  Labor 
would  have  been  easy  and  pleasant  otherwise. 

Then  in  regard  to  death.  There  are  those  who  represent 
the  Bible  as  if  it  taught  that  death  was  unknown  in  the 
world  until  after  the  Fall.  And  then  they  point  us  to  the 
reign  of  death  throughout  the  epochs  of  geology  as  contra- 
dicting the  Bible.  Now,  the  Bible  teaches  nothing  of  the 
kind.  On  the  contrary,  there  seems  rather  to  be  a  suggestion 
that  death  was  in  existence  among  the  lower  animals  all  the 
way  through.  Not  to  speak  of  the  probability  that  one  of 
the  divisions  of  animals,  mentioned  in  the  first  chapter  of 
Genesis,  corresponds  with  the  carnivora,  is  there  not  some- 
thing in  the  way  the  subject  of  death  is  introduced,  which 
rather  suggests  the  idea  that  it  was  already  known?  It  was 
a  new  thing  to  Adam.  It  was  not  a  new  thing  to  animal 
life.  Man  had  been  created  with  relations  to  mortality 


76  MISTAKES  OF  INGERSOLL. 

below  him,  but  with  relations  also  to  immortality  above 
him.  Had  he  not  fallen,  his  immortal  nature  would  have 
ruled  his  destiny;  but  now  that  he  has  separated  himself 
from  God  by  his  sin,  his  lower  relations,  his  mortal  relations, 
must  rule  his  destiny.  Instead  of  having  as  his  destiny  the 
prospect  of  being  associated  with  God  in  a  happy  immor- 
tality, he  is  degraded  from  that  position,  and  is  henceforth 
associated  with  the  animals  in  their  mortality.  We  are  told 
that  "  death  passed  upon  all  men,  because  all  have  sinned." 
But  you  do  not  find  a  passage  in  the  Bible  asserting  that 
death  passed  upon  the  animals  because  of  man's  ein. 

The   Deluge   and   its   Difficulties  —  Not  Universal —Ararat 

Originally  a  District  (Alas !   Ingersoll  Calls  it  a  High 

Mountain) — Other  Deluges. 

«...  We  must  here  touch  a  little  on  the  difficulties  con- 
nected with  the  story  of  the  flood.  These  difficulties  are 
almost  all  founded  upon  the  idea  that  the  deluge  was  univer- 
sal; that  it  covered  the  highest  tops  of  the  Himalayas  in 
India,  the  Rocky  Mountains  here,  and  all  the  mountains  over 
all  the  earth.  It  is  but  reasonable,  then,  to  ask  if  there  ia 
good  reason  for  insisting  that  it  was  universal? 

I  know  of  only  three  strong  reasons  that  are  given  for  this 
position.  The  first  is  the  use  of  the  term  "  earth  "  continu- 
ally throughout  the  narrative,  which  only  proves  that  those 
who  translated  the  Bible  into  English,  believed  the  flood  to 
have  been  universal.  As  we  have  had  occasion  already  to 
prove,  the  word  "earth  "  in  Hebrew  means  just  as  readily  a 
limited  district.  Why  do  not  those  who  insist  so  strongly 
on  the  wide  signification  of  "earth"  here,  not  insist  upon 
the  same  interpretation  in  such  a  passage  as  Genesis,  xii.  1, 
and  make  it  an  article  of  faith  that  Abraham  left  the  world 
altogether  and  went  to  another,  when  he  left  Ur  of  the 
Chaldees  and  went  to  Canaan?  The  second  argument  for 


DR.  GIBSON'S  REPLY.  71 

universality  is  found  in  universal  expressions,  th&  strongest 
of  which  is  Gen.  vii.  19:  "And  the  waters  prevailed  ex- 
ceedingly upon  the  earth,  and  all  the  high  hills  that  were 
under  the  whole  heaven  were  covered."  Now  remember 
that  this  is  the  account  of  an  eye-witness,  vividly  describing 
just  what  he  saw,  water  on  every  side,  water  all  around, 
nothing  but  water — even  the  mountains  to  the  farthest  verge 
of  the  horizon  covered  over  with  water.  When,  in  the  book 
of  Job,  we  read  of  the  lightning  flashing  over  the  whole 
heaven,  the  meaning  surely  can  not  be  that  a  lightning  flash 
starts  at  a  certain  degree  of  latitude  and  longitude,  and 
makes  a  journey  right  round  the  world  to  the  point  where 
it  started.  "  The  whole  heavens  "  is  evidently  bounded  by 
the  horizon.  The  third  reason  which  has  led  people  to  sup- 
pose the  whole  earth  was  covered  with  water,  is  found  in 
the  tradition  that  the  ark  rested  on  Mount  Ararat.  The 
tradition,  we  say,  for  that  is  all  the  authority  there  is  for  the 
idea.  In  Gen.  vii.  4,  we  are  told  that  the  ark  rested  on  the 
mountains  or  highlands  of  "  Ararat."  The  word  "  Ararat " 
only  occurs  other  two  times  in  the  Bible,  and  in  neither 
place  does  it  refer  to  what  was  only  long  afterward  called 
Mt.  Ararat.  In  Old  Testament  times  Ararat  was  not  a 
mountain  at  all,  but  a  district,  on  some  of  the  highlands  of 
which  the  ark  rested.  A  moment's  thought  will  show  that 
it  could  not  be  on  the  top  of  Ararat.  It  would  require  one 
of  the  hardiest  mountaineers  to  perform  such  a  feat  as  the 
climbing  of  Ararat.  It  would  be  the  most  inconvenient 
place  you  could  think  of  for  the  ark  to  rest  on.  When  you 
look  fairly  at  these  three  arguments  that  are  urged  in  sup- 
port of  a  universal  deluge,  you  will  find  that  none  of  them 
really  demand  it. 

On  the  other  hand,  there  are  things  that  seem  to  point 
the  other  way.  In  the  eleventh  verse  of  the  seventh  chap- 
ter we  are  told  that  "  in  the  second  month,  the  seventeenth 


78  MISTAKES  OF  INGEESOLL. 

day  of  the  month,  were  all  the  fountains  of  the  great  deep 
broken  up,  and  the  windows  of  heaven  were  opened." 
There  is  no  indication  there  of  the  sudden  creation  of  such 
a  body  of  water  as  would  cover  the  earth  to  the  depth  of 
30,000  feet  above  the  old  sea-level.  The  causes  that  are  as- 
signed are  just  such  as  could  be  most  readily  and  naturally 
used.  It  may  be  worth  while  to  notice  here  in  passing,  an 
attempt  which  has  been  made  recently  to  cast  ridicule  upon 
the  story  of  the  flood,  by  representing  the  Bible  as  if  it 
attributed  the  deluge  to  nothing  else  than  a  long,  heavy 
rain,  whereas  the  first  importance  is  given  to  an  entirely 
different  cause:  "the  fountains  of  the  great  deep  were  bro- 
ken up."  That  is  just  what  would  appear  to  one  who  was- 
describing  such  a  scene  as  we  imagine  this  to  be.  Suppose 
there  had  been  some  great  submergence  of  the  land  there, 
|  as  has  taken  place  in  other  parts  of  the  world.  There  would 
'  be  a  rushing  up  of  water  from  below,  from  "  the  fountains 
of  the  great  deep." 

Again,  in  the  first  verse  of  the  eighth  chapter,  natural 
agency  is  made  use  of:  "  God  made  a  wind  to  pass  over  the 
earth,  and  the  waters  assuaged."  There  is  no  reason  why 
we  should  suppose  a  greater  miracle  performed  than  waa 
necessary.  Still  further;  turn  to  the  tenth  verse  of  the  ninth 
'chapter,  where  God  says:  "  I  establish  my  covenant  with 
you,  and  with  every  living  creature  that  is  with  you;  from 
all  that  go  out  of  the  ark,  to  every  beast  of  the  earth.'* 
What  were  those  beasts  of  the  earth  thus  distinguished  from 
those  going  out  of  the  ark?  Probably  they  were  those  that 
came  from  the  area  of  land  not  covered  by  the  flood. 

Then  again,  attention  is  called  to  the  purpose  of  the  flood, 
which  was  simply  to  destroy  the  race  of  men,  and  it  is  not 
to  be  supposed  they  had  traveled  a  great  distance  by  this 
time  from  their  original  place  of  abode.  The  extent  of  the 
flood  need  not  have  been  any  greater  than  was  necessary  to- 
submerge  that  area. 


DR.  GIBSON'S  REPLY.  79 

Further,  when  we  take  this  view,  not  only  do  geological 
and  other  difficulties  disappear,  but  there  is  decided  confir- 
mation from  modern  scientific  research.  There  is  no  evi- 
dence in  geology  that  there  was  in  any  period  of  the  earth's 
history,  a  flood  great  enough  to  overtop  the  Rocky  Moun- 
tains, but  there  are  evidences  of  floods  as  great  as  this  one 
must  have  been,  for  the  purpose  of  destroying  the  race.  I 
do  not  know  how  it  is  in  the  immediate  region  where  the 
flood  is  supposed  to  have  been.  I  do  not  know  whether 
geologists  have  explored  it  sufficiently;  but  this  is  certain, 
that  there  are  evidences  of  similar  floods  in  other  parts  of 
the  world.  Some  of  our  own  geologists  have  discovered 
evidences  of  them  in  this  very  neighborhood.  You  have  not 
to  go  very  far  from  Chicago  to  find  such  traces  of  sudden, 
powerful,  and  transient  diluvial  action.  Then,  finally,  this 
view  of  the  deluge  removes,  of  course,  all  difficult}'  about 
the  number  of  animals  in  the  ark,  because  all  that  was 
necessary  was,  that  the  species  more  nearly  connected  with 
man,  those  found  in  the  region  that  was  submerged,  should 
be  represented  in  the  ark. 

But  after  all,  the  question  of  extent  is  of  quite  minor 
importance  so  long  as  it  is  conceded  that  it  was  universal  in 
the  sense  of  destroying  all  but  the  family  of  Noah.  The 
reality  of  the  judgment  is  the  great  thing,  and  of  this  we  have 
abundant  confirmation  from  tradition.  We  find  legends  of 
a  flood  everywhere.  "We  find  them  among  the  Semitic  and 
Aryan  and  Turanian  races.  "We  find  them  east  and  west, 
and  north  and  south;  in  savage  nations  and  civilized  nations; 
on  continents  and  in  islands;  in  the  old  world  and  in  the 
new.  And  if  Egypt  is  a  solitary  exception,  which  is  very 
doubtful,  but  if  it  is,  the  exception  is  accounted  for  by  the 
simple  fact  that  in  that  country  they  have  floods  every  year. 

Ilere  again,  as  in  the  traditions  of  the  Fall,  there  is 
difference  enough  to  show  which  is  the  original  and  true. 


80  MISTAKES  OF  INGERSOLL. 

Other  traditions  of  the  flood  are  polytheistic,  whereas  here 
we  have  the  one  living  and  true  God.  Those  are  full  of 
mythological  elements,  whereas  here  is  a  plain  narrative, 
with  the  impressive  scene  vividly,  but  quite  simply,  depicted. 
In  heathen  traditions,  too,  you  find  many  grotesque  items 
and  exaggerations,  as  for  instance,  when  the  ark  is  described 
as  three-fourths  of -a  mile  long,  and  drops  of  rain  the  size 
of  a  bull's  head;  and,  generally  speaking,  a  conspicuous  ab- 
sence of  that  moral  purpose  which  is  so  impressive  and  all- 
pervading  in  the  narrative  before  us. 

Faith  in  Jesus  Christ  the  Essential  Factor. 

.  .  .  There  are  those  in  our  day  who  find  a  stumbling- 
block  at  the  very  threshold  of  the  Christian  life,  in  the  fancy, 
that  what  is  required  of  them  in  order  to  salvation,  is  the  cred- 
iting of  all  the  details  of  a  long  history  extending  from  the 
first  man  to  the  last  man,  from  Adam  to  the  consummation 
of  all  things;  and  long  accustomed  to  that  sceptical  attitude 
of  mind  which  questions  all  things,  they  think  it  would 
take  them  a  life-time  (as  indeed  it  would)  to  verify  every 
/  statement  that  is  made  from  Genesis  to  Revelation,  and 
clear  them  from  all  possible  objections;  and  so  they  do  not 
venture  at  all.  But  remember,  it  is  never  said:  "  Believe 
everything  that  is  in  the  Bible  and  you  will  be  saved."  Ah, 
i  \\there  have  been  many  who  believed  everything  in  the  Bible, 
who  never  thought  of  questioning  a  sentence  in  it,  who  will 
find  themselves  none  the  better  for  their  easy  acquiescence 
in  the  statements  of  a  book  which  they  had  been  taught  to 
accept  as  inspired.  There  is  no  such  word  written  as, 
"Believe  the  Bible  and  you  will  be  saved."  No.  It  is 
"  Believe  on  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ  and  thou  shalt  bo 
saved."  Do  not  trouble  yourselves  in  the  first  instance  about 
questions  connected  with  the  book  of  Genesis,  or  difliculties 
suggested  by  the  book  of  Revelation.  Let  the  wars  of  the 


DR.  GIBSON'S  REPLY.  81 

Jews  alone  in  the  meantime,  and  dismiss  Jonah  from  your 
mind.  Look  to  Jesus;  get  acquainted  with  Him;  listen  to 
Ilisworcl;  believe  in  Him;  trust  Him;  obey  Him.  That 
is  all  that  is  asked  of  yon  in  the  first  instance.  After  you 
have  believed  on  Christ  and  taken  Him  as  your  Saviour 
your  Master,  your  Model,  you  will  not  be  slow  to  find  out 
that  "  all  Scripture  is  given  by  inspiration  of  God,  and  is 
profitable  for  doctrine  and  for  reproof,  and  for  correction, 
and  for  instruction  in  righteousness."  You  may  never 
have  all  your  difficulties  solved,  or  all  your  objections  met; 
but  though  difficulties  may  still  remain,  and  interrogation 
points  be  scattered  here  and  there  over  the  wide  Bible-field, 
you  will  be  sure  of  your  foundation ;  you  will  feel  that  your 
feet  are  planted  on  the  "  Rock  of  Ages,"  even  on  Him  of 
whom  God,  by  the  mouth  of  the  prophet  Isaiah,  said: 
"  Behold,  I  lay  in  Zion  for  a  foundation,  a  stone,  a  tried 
stone,  a  precious  corner-stone,  a  sure  foundation:  he  that 
belie veth  shall  not  make  haste." 


Candor  v.   Injustice — Dr.   Gibson's  Pointed  Summary. 

The  prevailing  feeling  among  intelligent  readers  of  the 
Bible  in  reference  to  the  profane  and  coarse  assaults  made 
on  it  by  Mr.  Eobert  Ingersoll,  is  that  few  people  are  so 
ignorant  as  to  be  imposed  upon  by  his  vulgar  witticisms. 
But,  inasmuch  as  there  are  not  a  few  who  accept  without 
inquiry  his  account  of  what  is  in  the  Bible,  it  may  be  well 
to  give  a  few  illustrations  of  his  unscrupulousness  in  put- 
tino-  "mistakes"  into  the  Bible  which  he  either  knows  or 

O 

ought  to  know,  are  not  there. 

He  asserts  positively  that  Moses  must  have  understood 
by  firmament  something  solid,  though  every  one  who  has 
studied  the  subject  knows,  and  the  fact  has  been  published 
again  and  again,  that  the  Hebrew  word  means  something 


82  MISTAKES  OF  INGERSOLL.     . 

exceedingly  attenuated,  being  the  very  best  word  in  the 
language  to  designate  the  atmosphere;  while  the  mistake 
found  in  the  English  word  "  firmament,"  is  due  to  the  sci- 
ence of  Alexandria,  where  in  the  third  century  before 
Christ,  the  "  expanse  "  of  Moses  was  translated  "  stereoma" 
(firmament)  to  suit  the  advanced  astronomy  of  the  time. 
(  When,  in  speaking  of  the  vegetation  of  the  third  day,  he 
says,  "  Not  a  blade  of  grass  had  even  been  touched  by  a 
single  gleam  of  light,"  is  he  dealing  fairly  with  a  narrative 
that  makes  light  its  first  creation  ? 

/'  When  he  accuses  Moses  of  compressing  the  astronomy 
of  the  universe  into  five  words,  is  he  dealing  fairly  with  a 
narrative  that  does  not  profess  to  give  any  astronomy  at 
all,  but,  after  a  general  reference  to  the  heavens  and  the  earth 
as  created  in  the  beginning,  restricts  itself  to  the  earth  and 
its  "environment?"  Any  intelligent  person  can  see  that 
this  is  the  reason  why  sun,  moon  and  stars  are  referred  to 
only  in  their  relations  to  the  earth. 

When  he  represents  the  first  and  second  chapters  of  Gen- 
esis as  a  varying  repetition  of  the  same  story,  is  it  fair  to 
withhold  all  reference  to  the  different  purport  and  object  of 
the  two  narratives,  which  fully  and  satisfactorily  explains 
the  variation? 

/  Is  it  fair  to  speak  of  the  deluge  to  represent  it  as  ascribed 
to  nothing  but  rain,  when  the  Bible  expressly  says,  "All 
the  fountains  of  the  great  deep  were  broken  up,"  evidently 
pointing  to  such  a  subsidence  of  the  land  as  is  familiar  to 
any  one  acquainted  wi  th  geology. 

(  Is  it  fair  to  make  the  Bible  responsible  for  the  Armenian 
tradition  that  the  ark  rested  on  the  top  of  Mount  Ararat, 
17,000  feet  high,  when  the  Bible  nowhere,  from  Genesis  to 
Revelation,  makes  any  such  statement?  The  district  of 
Ararat  on  the  mountains  or  highlands  of  which  the  ark 
rested  is  not  the  "  Agri-Dagh"  to  which  the  name  Ararat 


DR.  GIBSON'S  REPLY.  83 

has  in  modern  times  been  given;  and  Mr.  Ingersoll's 
ignorant  mistake  about  it  is  oi  the  same  kind  as  that  of  the 
bumpkin  who  should  inquire  for  the  Coliseum  in  Home,  N. 
Y.,  or  seek  the  tomb  of  Leonidas  in  Sparta,  Wisconsin. 

It  will  be  at  once  seen  that  with  this  childlike  ignorance 
is  connected  the  Ingersoll  nonsense  that  the  water  was  five 
and  a  half  miles  deep.  So  says  the  ignorant  critic,  while 
the  simple  and  reasonable  statement  of  the  Bible  is: 
"Fifteen  cubits  upwards  did  the  water  prevail."  As  for  the 
submersion  of  even  the  hills  to  the  utmost  verge  of  the 
horizon,  the  subsidence  of  the  land  was  quite  sufficient  to 
accomplish  it  without  resorting  to  the  supposition  of  any 
unreasonable  quantity  of  water. 

Is  it  fair,  when  Mr.  Ingersoll  wishes  to  render  ridiculous 
the  rate  of  increase  among  the  Israelites  in  Egypt,  to  rep- 
resent the  length  of  their  stay  there  as  215  years,  when 
Moses  says  (Exodus,  xii.,  40):  "  Now  the  sojourning  of  the 
children  of  Israel  who  dwelt  in  Egypt  was  430  years." 
The  only  other  place  in  the  Pentateuch  where  the  length  of 
their  stay  is  referred  to  is  in  the  prediction  concerning  it  in 
Genesis  xv.,  where  it  is  put  in  round  numbers  at  400 
years.  To  do  Mr.  Ingersoll  justice,  it  is  admitted  that 
certain  theologians,  on  the  strength  of  one  or  two  passages 
in  the  New  Testament  and  some  genealogical  difficulties, 
bave  favored  shortening  the  period,  but  the  subject  was  not 
the  mistakes  of  Moses,  but  of  theologians;  and  again  we 
ask,  Was  it  fair,  without  a  word  of  apology  or  explanation, 
to  deduct  more  than  two  centuries  from  the  time  Moses 
gives,  and  then  make  all  his  coarse,  not  to  say  indecent, 
ridicule  turn  on  the  shortness  of  the  time? 

One  hardly  knows  how  to  characterize  the  infamy  of  such 
a  passage  as  that  about  the  bird-eating  priests  during  the 
time  of  rapid  increase,  in  view  of  the  fact  that  there  were 
GO  priests  at  all,  and  no  such  rule  as  he  refers  to  during  the 


84  MISTAKES  OF  INGERSOLL. 

entire  430  years!  The  consecration  of  Aaron,  the  first 
priest,  did  not  take  place  till  after  the  Law  was  given  at 
Sinai,  and  the  ordinance  relating  to  the  offering  of  the 
pigeons  was  still  later.  These  are  mere  specimens  of  the 
mistakes  and  misrepresentations  which  form  the  warp  and 
woof  of  this  lecture. 


WHAT  DISTINGUISHED  MEN  SAY  OF  THE  BIBLE.    85 


SCIENTISTS. 

THE  grand  old  book  of  God  still  stands,  and  this  old  earth, 
the  more  its  leaves  are  turned  over  and  pondered,  the  more 
it  will  sustain  and  illustrate  the  sacred  word. — Professor 
Dana. 

INFIDELITY  has,  from  time,  erected  her  imposing  ramparts, 
and  opened  fire  upon  Christianity  from  a  thousand  batter- 
ies. But  the  moment  the  rays  of  truth  were  concentrated 
upon  their  ramparts  they  melted  away.  The  last  clouds  of 
ignorance  are  passing,  and  the  thunders  of  infidelity  are 
dying  upon  the  car.  The  union  and  harmony  of  Christian- 
ity and  science  is  a  sure  token  that  the  flood  of  unbelief  and 
ignorance  shall  never  more  go  over  the  world. — Professor 
Hitchcock. 

ALL  human  discoveries  seem  to  be  made  only  for  the  pur- 
pose of  confirming,  more  and  more  strongly,  the  truths 
contained  in  the  sacred  Scriptures. — Sir  John  Uerschel. 

THE  Bible  furnishes  the  only  fitting  vehicle  to  express  the 
thoughts  that  overwhelm  us  when  contemplating  the  stellar 
universe. — O.  M.  Mitchell. 

IN  my  investigation  of  natural  science,  I  have  always- 
found  that  whenever  I  can  meet  with  anything  in  the  Bible,, 


86  MISTAKES  OF  INGEIiSOLL. 

on  any  subject,  it  always  affords  me  a  fine  platform  on  which 
to  stand. — Lieutenant  Mau'ry 

IF  the  God  of  love  is  most  appropriately  worshiped  in 
the  Christian  temple,  the  God  of  nature  may  be  equally 
honored  in  the  temple  of  science.  Even  from  its  lofty 
minarets,  the  philosopher  may  summon  the  faithful  to 
prayer;  and  the  priest  and  the  sage  exchange  altars  without 
the  compromise  of  faith  or  knowledge. — /Sir  David  llrews- 
ter. 

A  NATION'S  intellectual  progress  has  always  followed — not 
preceded — some  moral  impulse.  The  history  of  the  tine  arts 
shows  that  some  form  of  religion  gave  them  their  earliest 
impulse.  There  has  never  been  a  great  genius  but  lias  been 
inspired  in  some  sense  by  religion.  The  thoughts  of  the 
intellect  are  lofty  in  proportion  as  the  sentiments  of  the 
heart  are  profound.  If  we  begin  the  attempt  to  improve 
men  with  the  intellect  we  end  where  we  begun.  Education 
will  not  remove  corruption.  It  may  guide  vice  as  in  ancient 
Rome  and  Athens,  but  will  not  uproot  it.  A  godless  edu- 
<sation  has  no  power  to  purify.  Instruction  in  morality 
also  has  failed  to  regenerate.  No  man  does  his  duty  simply 
because  he  knows  it  unless  he  loves  it;  nor  are  political  and 
social  changes  effective.  Social  evil  has  its  root  in  the 
individual  heart,  and  cannot  be  removed  except  by  influ- 
ences operating  within  it.  This  fountain  of  man's  corrup- 
tion must  be  purified  to  corrupt  social  vice. — Prof.  Seelye 


STATESMEN. 

TIIEKE  is  a  book  worth  all  other  books  which  were  ever 
printed. — Patrick  Henry. 

THE  Bible  is  the  best  book  in  the  world. — John  Adams. 


WHAT  DISTINGUISHED  MEN  SAT  OF  THE  SIDLE.    87 

/So  great  is  my  veneration  for  the  Bible,  that  the  earlier 
my  children  begin  to  read  it,  the  more  confident  will  be  my 
Lopes  that  they  will  prove  useful  citizens  to  their  country, 
and  respectable  members  of  society. — John  Quincy  Ad- 
ams. 

IT  is  impossible  to  govern  the  world  without  God.  He 
must  be  worse  than  an  infidel  that  lacks  faith,  and  more 
than  wicked  that  has  not  gratitude  enough  to  acknowledge 
iiis  obligation. — General  George  Washington. 

/  POINTING  to  the  family  Bible  on  the  stand,  during  his  last 
illness,  Andrew  Jackson)  said  to  his  friend:  "That  book,  sir, 
\&  the  rock  on  which  our  republic  rests." 

'  I  DEEM  the  present  occasion  sufficiently  important  and 
«olemn  to  justify  me  in  expressing  to  my  fellosv  citizens  a 
profound  reverence  for  the  Christian  religion,  and  a  thorough 
conviction  that  sound  morals,  religious  liberty,  and  a  just 
«ense  of  religious  responsibility,  are  essentially  connected 
with  all  true  and  lasting  happiness. — General  Harrison's 
Inaugural  Address. 

As  to  Jesus  of  Nazareth,  my  opinion  of  whom  you  par- 
ticularly desire,  I  think  the  system  of  morals,  and  His  relig- 
ion, as  lie  left  them  to  us,  is  the  best  the  world  ever  saw,  or 
is  likely  to  see. — Benjamin  franklin. 

Do  you  think  that  your  pen,  or  the  pen  of  any  "other  man, 
•can  uncliristianize  the  mass  of  our  citizens?  Or  have  you 
hopes  of  corrupting  a  few  of  them  to  assist  you  in  so  bad  a 
cause? — Samuel  Adams'  Letter  to  Thomas  Paine. 

^r 

Gnu  STIAXITY  is  the  only  true  and  perfect  religion,  and  that 
in  proportion  as  mankind  adopt  its  principles  and  obey  its 
precepts,  they  will  be  wise  and  happy.  And  a  better  knowl- 
edge of  this  religion  is  to  be  acquired  by  reading  the  Bible 
than  in  any  other  way. — Benjamin  Hush. 


88  MISTAKES  OF  INGEESOLL. 


that  illustrious  man,  Cliicf  Justice  Joy,  was  dying, 
he  was  asked  if  lie  had  any  farewell  address  to  leave  his 
children  ;  he  replied,  "  They  have  the  Bible." 

r 

I  ALWAYS  have  had,  and  always  shall  have,  a  profound  re- 
gard for  Christianity,  the  religion  of  my  fathers,  and  for  its 
rites,  its  usages,  and  observances.  —  Henry  Clay. 

A  FEW  days  before  his  death,  "  the  foremost  man  of  all 
his  times,"  drew  up  and  signed  this  declaration  of  his  relig- 
ious faith:  "  Lord,  I  believe;  help  thou  mine  unbelief. 
Philosophical  argument,  especially  that  drawn  from  the 
vastness  of  the  universe,  in  comparison  with  the  insignifi- 
cance of  this  globe,  has  sometimes  shaken  my  reason  for 
the  faith  that  is  in  me,  but  my  heart  has  always  assured 
and  reassured  me  that  the  gospel  of  Jesus  Christ  must  be  a 
divine  reality.  The  Sermon  on  the  Mount  cannot  be  a 
merely  human  production.  This  belief  enters  into  the  very 
depth  of  my  conscience."  —  Daniel  Webster. 

"  HOLD  fast  to  the  Bible  as  the  sheet  anchor  of  our  liber- 
erties;  write  its  precepts  on  your  hearts,  and  practice  them 
in  your  lives.  To  the  influence  of  this  book  we  are  indebted 
for  the  progress  made  in  true  civilization,  and  to  this  we 
must  look  as  our  guide  in  the  future.  —  U.  S.  Grant. 

PHILOSOPHY  has  sometimes  forgotten  God  ;  as  great  people 
never  did.  The  skepticism  of  the  last  century  could  not 
uproot  Christianity,  because  it  lived  in  the  hearts  of  the 
millions.  Do  you  think  that  infidelity  is  spreading?  Chris- 
tianity never  lived  in  the  hearts  of  so  many  millions  as  at 
this  moment.  The  forms  under  which  it  is  professed  may 
decay,  for  they,  like  all  that  is  the  work  of  man's  hands,  are 
subject  to  the  changes  and  chances  of  mortal  being;  but  the 
spirit  of  truth  is  incorruptible;  it  may  be  developed,  illus- 
trated and  applied;  it  can  never  die;  it  never  can  decline. 


WHAT  DISTINGUISHED  MEN  SAY  OF  THE  BIBLE.    89 

No  truth  can  perish.  No  truth  can  pass  away.  The  flame 
is  undying,  though  generations  disappear.  Wherever  mor- 
tal truth  lias  started  into  being  humanity  claims  and  guards 
the  bequest.  Each  generation  gathers  together  the  imper- 
ishable children  of  the  past,  and  increases  them  by  the  new 
eons  of  the  light,  alike  radiant  with  immortality. — Ban- 
croft. 


GREAT     THINKERS. 

IT  is  a  belief  in  the  Bible  which  has  served  me  as  the 
guide  of  my  moral  and  literary  life. — Goethe. 

I  ACCOUNT  the  Scriptures  of  God  to  be  the  most  sublime 
philosophy. — Sir  Isaac  Newton. 

To  give  a  man  a  full  knowledge  of  true  morality,  I 
should  need  to  send  him  to  no  other  book  than  the  New 
Testament. — John  Locke. 

I  KNOW  the  Bible  is  inspired,  because  it  finds  me  at 
greater  depths  of  my  being  than  any  other  book. — Cole- 
ridge. 

A  NORLB  book!  All  men's  book.  It  is  our  first  state- 
ment of  the  never-ending  problem  of  man's  destiny  and 
God's  way  with  men  on  earth. — Carlyle. 

I  MUST  confess  the  majesty  of  the  Scriptures  strikes  me 
with  astonishment. — Rousseau. 

"  THERE  is  not  a  boy  nor  a  girl,  all  Christendom  through, 
but  their  lot  is  made  better  by  this  great  book. — Theodore 
Parker. 

/     TAKTC  the  gospel  away,  and  what  a  mockery  is  human 
philosophy  1     I  once  met  a  thoughtful  scholar  who  told  me 


90  MISTAKES  OF  INGERSOLL. 

that  for  years  he  had  read  every  book  which  assailed  the- 
religion  of  Jesus  Christ.  lie  said  that  he  should  have 
become  an  infidel  if  it  had  not  been  for  three  things: 

"  First,  I  am  a  man.  I  am  going  somewhere.  I  am  to- 
night a  day  nearer  the  grave  than  last  night.  I  have  read 
all  that  they  can  tell  me.  There  is  not  ono  solitary  ray  of 
light  upon  the  darkness.  They  shall  not  take  away  the 
only  guide  and  leave  me  stone  blind. 

"  Secondly,  I  had  a  mother.  I  saw  her  go  down  into  the 
dark  valley  where  I  am  going,  and  she  leaned  upon  an  un- 
seen arm  as  calmly  as  a  child  goes  to  sleep  upon  the  breast 
of  a  mother.  I  know  that  was  not  a  dream. 

"  Thirdly,"  he  said  with  tears  in  his  eyes,  "  I  have  three 
motherless  daughters.  They  have  no  protector  but  myself. 
I  would  rather  kill  them  than  leave  them  in  this  sinful 
world  if  you  could  blot  out  from  it  all  the  teachings  of  the 
Gospel." — Bishop  Wkipple. 

/WHEN  Daniel  Webster  was  in  his  best  moral  state,  and 
when  he  was  in  the  prime  of  his  manhood,  he  was  one  day 
dining  with  a  company  of  literary  gentlemen  in  the  city  of 
Boston.  The  company  was  composed  of  clergymen,  law- 
yers, physicians,  statesmen,  merchants,  and  almost  all 
classes  of  literary  persons.  During  the  dinner  conversa- 
tion incidentally  turned  upon  the  subject  of  Christianity. 
Mr.  "Webster,  as  the  occasion  was  in  honor  of  him,  was 
expected  to  take  a  leading  part  in  the  conversation,  and  he 
frankly  stated  as  his  religious  sentiments  his  belief  in  the 
divinity  of  Christ,  and  his  dependence  upon  the  atonement 
of  the  Savior.  A  minister  of  very  considerable  literary 
reputation  sat  almost  opposite  him  at  the  table,  and  he 
looked  at  him  and  said:  "Mr.  Webster,  can  you  compre- 
hend how  Jesus  Christ  could  be  both  God  and  man? "  Mr. 
Webster,  with  one  of  those  looks  which  no  man  can  imitate, 


WHAT  DISTINGUISHED  MEN  SAY  OF  THE  BIBLE.    9* 

fixed  his  eyes  upon  him,  and  promptly  and  emphatically 
said:  "Isro,  sir,  I  cannot  comprehend  it;  and  I  would  be 
ashamed  to  acknowledge  him  as  my  Savior  if  1  could  com- 
prehend it.  If  I  could  comprehend  him,  he  could  be  no 
greater  than  myself,  and  such  is  my  conviction  of  accounta- 
bility to  God,  such  is  my  sense  of  sinfulness  before  him, 
and  such  is  my  knowledge  of  my  own  incapacity  to  recover 
myself,  that  I  feel  1  need  a  superhuman  Savior." — Bishop 
Janes. 

WHAT  can  be  more  foolish  than  to  think  that  all  this  rare 
fabric  of  Heaven  and  earth  could  come  by  chance,  when  all 
the  skill  of  art  is  not  able  to  make  an  oyster? — Jeremy 
Taylor. 

IT  would  not  be  worth  while  to  live  if  we  were  to  die 
entirely.  That  which  alleviates  labor  and  sanctifies  toil  is 
to  have  before  us  the  vision  of  a  better  world  through  the 
darkness  of  this  life.  That  world  is  to  me  more  real  than 
the  chimera  which  we  devour,  and  which  we  call  life.  Itia 
forever  before  my  eyes.  It  is  the  supreme  certainty  of  my 
reason,  as  it  is  the  supreme  consolation  of  my  soul. —  Vic- 
tor Hugo. 

ONCE,  had  I  been  called  upon  to  create  the  earth,  I  should 
have  done  as  the  many  would  now.  I  should  have  laid  it  out 
in  pleasure-grounds,  and  given  man  Milton's  occupation  of 
tending  flowers.  But  I  am  now  satisfied  with  this  wild 

O 

earth,  its  awful  mountains  and  depths,  steeps  and  torrents. 
I  am  not  sorry  to  learn  that  God's  end  is  a  virtue  far 
higher  than  I  should  have  prescribed. — Channing. 

To  do  good  to  men  is  the  great  work  of  life;  to  make 
them  true  Christians  is  the  greatest  good  we  can  do  them. 
Every  investigation  brings  us  round  to  this  point.  Begin 


92  MISTAKES  OF  INGERSOLL. 

here  and  you  are  like  one  who  strikes  water  from  a  rock  on 
the  summit  of  the  mountains;  it  flows  down  all  the  inter- 
vening tracts  to  the  very  base.  If  we  could  make  each 
man  love  his  neighbor,  we  should  make  a  happy  world. 
The  true  method  is  to  begin  with  ourselves  and  so  extend 
the  circle  around  us.  It  should  be  perpetually  in  our 
minds. — J.  TF".  Alexander. 

FKOM  philosophy,  from  poetcy  and  from  art,  is  heard  the 
acknowledgment  that  there  is  no  repose  for  the  rational 
spirit  but  in  moral  truth.  The  testimony  that  the  whole 
•creation  groaneth  and  travaileth  in  pain,  together,  is  as 
loud  and  convincing  from  the  domain  of  letters,  as  it  is 
from  the  cursed  and  thistle- bearing  ground.  From  the 
immortal  longing  and  dissatisfaction  of  Plato,  down  to  the 
wild  and  passionate  restlessness  of  Byron  and  Shelley,  the 
evidence  is  decisive  that  a  spiritual  and  religious  element 
must  enter  into  the  education  of  man  in  order  to  inward 
harmony  and  rest. — Dr.  Shedd. 

"THE  mother  of  a  family  was  married  to  an  infidel,  who 
made  a  jest  of  religion  in  the  presence  of  his  own  children; 
jet  she  succeeded  in  bringing  them  all  up  in  the  fear  of 
the  Lord.  I  one  day  asked  her  how  she  preserved  them 
from  the  influence  of  a  father  whose  sentiments  were  so 
openly  opposed  to  her  own.  This  was  her  answer:  'Because 
to  the  authority  of  a  father  I  did  not  oppose  the  authority 
of  a  mother,  but  that  of  God.  From  their  earliest  years  my 
children  have  always  seen  the  Bible  upon  my  table.  This 
holy  book  has  constituted  the  whole  of  their  religious 
instruction.  I  was  silent  that  I  might  allow  it  to  speak. 
Did  they  propose  a  question,  did  they  commit  any  fault, 
did  they  perform  any  good  action,  I  opened  the  Bible,  and 
the  Bible  answered,  reproved  or  encouraged  them.  The 


WHAT  DISTINGUISHED  MEN  SAY  OF  THE  BIBLE.    93 

constant  reading  of  the  Scriptures  has  alone   wrought  the 
prodigy  which  surprises  you.' " — Adolphe  Monod. 

I  PREACHED  on  Sunday  in  the  parlors  at  Long  Branch. 
The  war  was  over,  and  Admiral  Farragut  and  his  family 
were  spending  the  summer  at  the  Branch.  Sitting  on  the 
portico  of  the  hotel  Monday  morning,  he  said  to  mer 
"  Would  you  like  to  know  how  I  was  enabled  to  serve  my 
country?  It  was  all  owing  to  a  resolution  I  formed  when 
I  was  ten  years  of  age.  My  father  was  sent  down  to  New 
Orleans  with  the  little  navy  we  then  had,  to  look  after  the 
treason  of  Burr.  I  accompanied  him  as  cabin-boy.  I  had 
some  qualities  that  I  thought  made  a  man  of  me.  I  could 
swear  like  an  old  salt;  could  drink  a  stiff  glass  of  grog  as 
if  I  had  doubled  Cape  Horn,  and  could  smoke  like  a  loco- 
motive. I  was  great  at  cards  and  fond  of  gaming  in  every 
shape.  At  the  close  of  the  dinner  one  day,  my  father 
turned  every  body  out  of  the  cabin,  locked  the  door,  and 
said  to  me:  • 

"  'David,  what  do  you  mean  to  be? ' 

" '  I  mean  to  follow  the  sea.' 

"  '  Follow  the  sea!  Yes,  be  a  poor,  miserable  drunken 
sailor  before  the  mast,  kicked  and  cuffed  about  the  world, 
and  die  in  some  fever  hospital,  in  a  foreign  clime.' 

" '  No,'  I  said,  '  I'll  tread  the  quarter-deck  and  command 
as  you  do.' 

" '  No,  David ;  no  boy  ever  trod  the  quarter-deck  with 
Buch  principles  as  you  have,  and  such  habits  as  you  exhibit. 
You'll  have  to  change  your  whole  course  of  life  if  you  ever 
become  a  man.' 

"  My  father  left  me  and  went  on  deck.  I  was  stunned 
by  the  rebuke  and  overwhelmed  with  mortification.  '  A 
poor,  miserable,  drunken  sailor  before  the  mast,  kicked  and 
cuffed  about  the  world,  and  to  die  in  some  fever  hospital! 


94  MISTAKES  OF  INGERSOLL. 

That's  my  fate,  is  it?  I'll  change  my  life,  and  change  it  at 
once.  I  will  never  utter  another  oath,  I  will  never  drink 
another  drop  of  intoxicating  liquors,  I  will  never  gamble.' 
And,  as  God  is  my  witness,  I  have  kept  those  three  vows 
to  this  hour.  Shortly  after,  I  became  a  Christian.  That 
act  settled  my  temporal,  as  it  settled  my  eternal  destiny." 
— Anon. 

A  BIBLE  well  worn  in  that  part  which  contains  the  Ser- 
mon on  the  Mount  is  the  book  which  our  age  most  needs. 
There  the  "Will  of  the  Father,  those  laws  which  save  souls 
or  damn  them  lie  in  perfect  plainness.  No  commentary 
can  throw  light  upon  them,  no  science  or  learning  can  take 
their  light  away.  They  are  a  part  of  the  universe,  only 
more  imperishable  than  the  stars.  Christ  died  for  man  be- 
cause man  would  not  respect  these  laws  of  the  kingdom. 
Having  died  for  sinners,  lie  now  invites  them  to  come  into 
these  laws  of  the  Father.  Do  not  mistake  the  invitation. — 
David  Swing. 

You  never  can  get  at  the  literal  limitation  of  living  facts. 
They  disguise  themselves  by  the  very  strength  of  their  life; 
get  told  again  and  again  in  different  ways  by  all  manner  of 
people;  the  literalness  of  them  is  turned  topsy-turvy,  inside 
out,  overhand  over  again;  then  the  fools  come  and  read  them 
wrong  side  upwards,  or  else  say  there  never  was  a  fact  at  all. 
Nothing  delights  a  true  blockhead  so  much  as  to  prove  a  neg- 
ative,— to  sftow  that  everybody  has  been  wrong.  Fancy  the 
delicious  sensation  to  an  empty-headed  creature  of  fancying 
for  a  moment  that  he  has  emptied  everybody  else's  head  as 
well  as  his  own !  nay,  that  for  once,  his  own  hollow  bottle 
of  a  head  has  had  the  best  of  other  bottles,  and  has  been  first 
empty, — first  to  know  nothing. — Ituskin. 

IT  is  not  so  wretched  to  be  blind  as  it  is  not  to  bo  capable 
of  enduring  blindness.  Let  me  be  the  most  feeble  creature 


WHAT  DISTINGUISHED  MEN  SAT  OF  THE  BIBLE.    95 

alive  as  long  as  that  feebleness  serves  to  invigorate  the  en- 
ergies of  my  rational  and  immortal  spirit;  so  long  as  in  that 
obscurity  in  which  I  am  enveloped  the  light  of  the  divine 
presence  more  clearly  shines;  and  indeed,  in  my  blindness 
I  enjoy  in  no  inconsiderable  degree  the  favor  of  the  Deity, 
who  regards  me  with  more  tenderness  and  compassion  in 
proportion  as  I  am  able  to  behold  nothing  but  Himself. 
For  the  divine  law  not  only  shields  me  from  injury,  but  al- 
most renders  me  too  sacred  to  attack,  as  from  the  overshad- 
owing of  those  heavenly  wings  which  seem  to  have  occasioned 
this  obscurity. — Milton. 

A  PRINCE  said  to  Rabbi  Gamaliel:  "Your  God  is  a 
thief;  he  surprised  Adam  in  his  sleep,  and  stole  a  rib  from 
him."  The  Rabbi's  daughter  overheard  this  speech,  and 
whispered  a  word  or  two  in  her  father's  ear,  asking  his 
permission  to  answer  this  singular  opinion  herself.  He 
gave  his  consent.  The  girl  stepped  forward,  and  feigning 
terror  and  dismay,  threw  her  arms  aloft  in  supplication,  and 
cried  out,  "  My  liege,  my  liege,  justice!  revenge!  "  "  What 
has  happened?"  asked  the  prince.  "A  wicked  theft  has 
taken  place,"  she  replied.  "  A  robber  has  crept  secretly 
into  our  house,  carried  away  a  silver  goblet,  and  left  a 
golden  one  in  its  stead."  "  What  an  upright  thief ! " 
exclaimed  the  prince.  "  Would  that  such  robberies  were 
of  more  frequent  occurrence!"  "Behold,  then,  sir,  the 
kind  of  thief  our  Creator  was;  he  stole  a  rib  from  Adam, 
and  gave  him  a  beautiful  wife  instead."  "Well  said!" 
avowed  the  prince. — Talmud  /Sanhedrim. 

ONCE  there  was  a  Judge  who  had  a  colored  man.  The 
colored  man  was  very  godly,  and  the  Judge  used  to  have 
him  to  drive  him  around  in  his  circuit.  The  Judge  used 
often  to  talk  with  him,  and  the  colored  man  would  tell  tho 
Judge  about  his  religious  experience,  and  about  his  battle^ 


and  conflicts.  One  day  the  Judge  said  to  him:  "Sambo, 
how  is  it  that  you  Christians  are  always  talking  ^about  the 
conflicts  you  have  with  Satan?  I  am  better  off  than  you 
are.  I  don't  have  any  troubles  or  conflicts,  and  yet  I  am  an 
infidel  and  yon  are  a  Christian — always  in  a  muss; — how's 
that,  Sambo?"  This  floored  the  colored  man  for  awhile.  He 
did  n't  know  how  to  meet  the  old  infidel's  argument.  So  he 
shook  his  head  sorrowfully  and  said :  "  I  dunno,  Massa,  I 
dunno."  The  Judge  always  carried  a  gun  along  with  him 
for  hunting.  Pretty  soon  they  came  to  a  lot  of  ducks.  The 
Judge  took  his  gun  and  blazed  away  at  them,  and  wounded 
one  and  killed  another.  The  Judge  said  quickly:  "You 
jump  in,  Sambo,  and  get  that  wounded  duck  before  he  gets 
off,"  and  did  not  pay  any  attention  to  the  dead  one.  In 
went  Sambo  for  the  wounded  duck,  and  came  out  reflecting. 
The  colored  man  then  thought  he  had  an  illustration.  He 
said  to  the  Judge:  "Ihab  'im  now,  Massa;  I'se  able  to 
show  you  how  de  Christian  hab  greater  conflict  dan  de  infi- 
del. Do  n't  you  know  de  moment  you  wounded  dat  ar  duck, 
how  anxious  you  was  to  get  'im  out,  and  you  did  n't  care  for 
de  dead,  but  jus'  lef '  him  alone?  "  "  Yes,"  said  the  Judge. 
"  Well,"  said  Sambo,  "ye  see  as  how  dat  are  dead  duck 's  a 
sure  thing.  I  'se  wounded,  and  I  tries  to  get  away  from  the 
debbil.  It  takes  trouble  to  cotch  me.  But,  Massa,  you  are 
a  dead  duck — dar's  no  squabble  for  you;  de  debbil  have  you 
sure!"  So  the  devil  has  no  conflict  with  the  infidel. — D- 
L.  Moody. 


"MISTAKES  OF  MOSES."  97 


INGERSOLL'S  LECTURE 

ON 

THE  MISTAKES  OF  MOSES." 


Now  and  then  some  one  asks  me  why  I  am  endeavoring  to  interfere 
with  the  religious  faith  of  others,  and  why  I  try  to  take  from  the  world 
the  consolation  naturally  arising  from  a  belief  in  eternal  fire.  And  I  an- 
swer, I  want  to  do  what  little  I  can  to  make  my  country  truly  free.  I 
want  to  broaden  the  intellectual  horizon  of  our  people.  I  want  it  so  that 
we  can  differ  upon  all  those  questions,  and  yet  grasp  each  other's  hands 
in  genuine  friendship.  I  want  in  the  first  place  to  free  the  clergy.  I  am 
a  great  friend  of  theirs,  but  they  don't  seem  to  have  found  it  out  gener- 
ally. I  want  it  so  that  every  minister  will  be  not  a  parrot,  not  an  owl  sit- 
ting upon  a  dead  limb  of  the  tree  of  knowledge  and  hooting  the  hoots  that 
have  been  hooted  for  eighteen  hundred  years.  But  I  want  it  so  that  each 
one  can  be  an  investigator,  a  thinker;  and  I  want  to  make  his  congregation 
grand  enough  so  that  they  will  not  only  allow  him  to  think,  but  will  de- 
mand that  he  shall  think,  and  give  to  them  the  honest  truth  of  his 
thought.  As  it  is  now,  ministers  are  employed  like  attorneys — for  the 
plaintiff  or  the  defendant.  If  a  few  people  know  of  a  young  man  in  the 
neighborhood  maybe  who  has  not  a  good  constitution — he  may  not  be 
healthy  enough  to  be  wicked — a  young  man  who  has  shown  no  decided 
talent — it  occurs  to  them  to  make  him  a  minister.  They  contribute  and 
send  him  to  some  school.  If  it  turns  out  that  that  young  man  has  more  of 
the  man  in  him  than  they  thought,  and  he  changes  his  opinion,  every 
one  who  contributed  will  feel  himself  individually  swindled — and  they 
will  follow  that  young  man  to  the  grave  with  the  poisoned  shafts  of  mal- 
ice and  slander,  i  want  it  «o  that  every  one  will  be  free — so  that  a  pulpit  will 
not  be  a  pillory.  They  have  in  Massachusetts,  at  a  place  called  Audover, 
7 


96  MISTAKES  OF  INGEBSOLL. 

a  kind  of  minister- factory;  and  every  professor  in  that  factory  takes  an 
oath  once  in  every  five  years — that  is  as  long  as  an  oath  will  last — that 
not  only  has  he  not  during  the  last  five  years,  but  so  help  him  God,  he 
will  not  during  the  next  five  years  intellectually  advance;  and  probably 
there  is  no  oath  he  could  easier  keep.  Since  the  foundation  of  that  insti- 
tution there  has  not  been  one  case  of  perjury.  They  believe  the  same 
creed  they  first  taught  when  the  foundation  stone  was  laid,  and  now  when 
they  send  out  a  minister  they  brand  him  as  hardware  from  Sheffield  and 
Birmingham.  And  every  man  who  knows  where  he  was  educated  knows 
his  creed,  knows  every  argument  of  his  creed,  every  book  that  he  re  ids, 
and  just  what  he  amounts  to  intellectually,  and  knows  he  will  shrink  and 
shrivel,  and  become  solemnly  stupid  day  after  day  until  he  meets  with 
death.  It  is  all  wrong;  it  is  cruel.  Those  men  should  be  allowed  to 
grow.  They  should  have  the  air  of  liberty  and  the  sunshine  of  thought. 
I  want  to  free  the  schools  of  our  country.  I  want  it  so  that  when  a 
professor  in  a  college  finds  some  fact  inconsistent  with  Moses,  he  will  not 
hide  the  fact,  that  it  will  not  be  the  worse  for  him  for  having:  discovered 
the  fact.  I  wish  to  see  an  eternal  divorce  and  separation  between  church 
and  schools.  The  common  school  is  the  bread  of  life;  but  there  should 
be  nothing  taught  in  the  schools  except  what  somebody  knows;  and  any- 
thing else  should  not  be  maintained  by  a  system  of  general  taxation.  I 
want  its  professors  so  that  they  will  tell  everything  they  find;  that  they 
will  be  free  to  investigate  in  every  direction,  and  will  not  be  trammeled 
/by  the  superstitions  of  our  day.  What  has  religion  to  do  with  facts? 
I  Nothing.  la  there  any  such  thing  as  Methodist  mathematics,  Presbyter- 
l  ian  botany,  Catholic  astronomy  or  Baptist  biology?  What  has  any  form 
of  superstition  or  religion  to  do  with  a  fact  or  with  any  science?  Nothing 
but  to  hinder,  delay  or  embarrass.  I  want,  then,  to  free  the  schools; 
and  I  want  to  free  the  politicians,  so  that  a  man  will  not  have  to  pretend 
he  is  a  Methodist,  or  his  wife  a  Baptist,  or  his  grandmother  a  Catholic; 
so  that  he  can  go  through  a  campaign,  and  when  he  gets  through  will 
find  none  of  the  dust  of  hypocrisy  on  his  knees. 

I  want  the  people  splendid  enough  that  when  they  desire  men  to 
make  laws  for  them,  they  will  take  one  who  knows  something,  who  haa 
brains  enough  to  prophesy  the  destiny  of  the  American  Republic,  no 
matter  what  his  opinions  may  be  upon  any  religious  subject.  Suppose 
we  are  in  a  storm  out  at  sea,  and  the .  billows  are  washing  over  our  ship, 
and  it  is  necessary  that  some  one  should  reef  the  topsail,  and  a  man  pre- 
•ents  himself.  Would  you  stop  him  at  the  foot  of  the  mast  to  find  out 
his  opinion  on  the  five  points  of  Calvinism?  What  has  that  to  do  with 
it?  Congress  has  nothing  to  do  with  baptism  or  any  particular  creed, 
and  from  what  little  experience  1  have  had  of  Washington,  very  little  to 


"MISTAKES  OF  MOSES."  99 

do  with  any  kind  of  religion  whatever.  Now  I  hope,  this  afternoon,  thii 
magnificent  and  splendid  audience  will  forget  that  they  are  Baptists  or 
Methodists,  and  remember  that  they  are  men  and  women.  These  are  the 
highest  titles  humanity  can  bear — man  and  woman;  and  every  title  you 
add  belittles  them.  Man  is  the  highest ;  woman  is  the  highest.  Let  us 
remember  that  we  are  simply  human  beings,  with  interests  in  common. 
And  let  us  remember  that  our  views  depend  largely  upon  the  country  in 
which  we  happen  to  live.  Suppose  we  were  born  in  Turkey  most  of  us  , 
would  have  been  Mohammedans;  and  when  we  read  in  the  book  that 
when  Mohammed  visited  heaven  he  became  acquainted  with  an  angel 
named  Gabriel,  who  was  so  broad  between  his  eyes  that  it  would  take  a 
smart  camel  three  hundred  days  to  m  ike  the  journey,  we  probably  would  \ 
have  believed  it.  If  we  did  not,  people  would  say:  "That  young  man 
is  dangerous;  he  is  trying  to  tear  down  the  fabric  of  our  religion.  What 
do  you  propose  to  give  us  instead  of  that  angel?  We  cannot  afford  to 
trade  off  an  angel  of  that  size  for  nothing."  Or  if  we  had  been  born  in 
India,  we  would  have  believed  in  a  god  with  three  heads.  Now  we  be- 
lieve in  three  gods  with  one  head.  And  so  we  might  make  a  tour  of  the 
world  and  see  that  every  superstition  that  could  be  imagined  by  the  brain 
of  man  has  been  in  some  place  held  to  be  sacred. 

Now  some  one  says,  "The  religion  of  my  father  and  mother  is  good 
enough  for  me."  Suppose  we  all  said  that,  where  would  be  the  progress 
of  the  world?  We  would  have  the  rudest  and  most  barbaric  religion — 
religion  which  no  one  could  believe.  I  do  not  believe  that  it  is  showing 
real  respect  to  our  parents  to  believe  something  simply  because  they  did. 
Every  good  father  and  every  good  mother  wish  their  children  to  find  out 
more  than  they  knew;  every  good  father  wants  his  son  to  overcome  some 
obstacle  that  he  could  not  grapple  with;  and  if  you  wish  to  reflect  credit 
on  your  father  and  mother,  do  it  by  accomplishing  more  than  they  did, 
because  you  live  in  a  better  time.  Every  nation  has  had  what  you  call  a 
sacred  record,  and  the  older  the  more  sacred,  the  more  contradictory  and 
the  more  inspired  is  the  record.  We,  of  course,  are  not  an  exception,  and 
I  propose  to  talk  a  little  about  what  is  called  the  Pentateuch,  a  book,  or 
a  collection  of  books,  said  to  have  been  written  by  Moses.  And  right- 
here  in  the  commencement  let  me  say  that  Moses  never  wrote  one  word 
of  the  Pentateuch — not  one  word  was  written  until  he  had  been  dust  and 
ashes  for  hundreds  of  years.  But  as  the  general  opinion  is  that  Moses 
wrote  these  books,  I  have  entitled  this  lecture  the  "The  Mistakes  of 
Moses."  For  the  sake  of  this  lecture,  we  will  admit  that  he  wrote  it. 
Nearly  every  maker  of  religion  has  commenced  by  making  the  world; 
and  it  is  one  of  the  safest  things  to  do,  because  no  one  can  contradict  as 
having  been  present,  and  it  gives  free  scope  to  the  imagination.  These 


100  MISTAKES  OF  INGERSOLL. 

books,  in  times  when  there  was  a  vast  difference  between  the  educated 
and  the  ignorant,  became  inspired  and  people  bowed  down  and  wor- 
shipped them. 

I  saw  a  little  while  ago  a  Bible  with  immense  oaken  covers,  with 
hasps  and  clasps  large  enough  almost  for  a  penitentiary,  and  I  can  imagine 
how  that  book  would  be  regarded  by  barbarians  in  Europe  when  not  more 
than  one  person  in  a  dozen  could  read  and  write.  In  imagination  I  saw 
it  carried  into  the  cathedral,  heard  the  chant  of  the  priest,  saw  the  swing- 
ing of  the  censer  and  the  smoke  rising;  and  when  that  Bible  was  put  on 
the  altar  I  can  imagine  the  barbarians  looking  at  it  and  wondering  what 
influence  that  black  book  could  have  on  their  lives  and  future.  1  do  not 
wonder  that  they  imagined  it  was  inspired.  None  of  them  could  write  a 
book,  and  consequently  when  they  saw  it  they  adored  it;  they  were 
stricken  with  awe;  and  rascals  look  advantage  of  that  awe. 
,*•  Now  they  say  that,  the  book  is  inspired.  I  do  not  care  whether  it  is  or 
J  not;  the  question  is:  Is  it  true?  If  it  is  true  it  don't  need  to  be  inspired. 
I  Nothing  needs  inspiration  except  a  falsehood  or  a  mistake.  A  fact  never 
^went  into  partnership  with  a  miracle.  Truth  scorns  the  resistance  of  won- 
ders. A  fact  will  fit  every  other  fact  in  the  universe,  and  that  is  how  you 
can  tell  whether  it  is  or  is  not  a  fact.  A  lie  will  not  fit  anything  except 
another  lie  made  for  the  express  purpose;  and,  finally,  some  one  gets  tired 
of  lying,  and  the  last  lie  will  not  fit  the  next  fact,  and  then  there  is  a 
chance  for  inspiration.  Right  then  and  there  a  miracle  is  needed.  The 
real  question  is:  In  the  light  of  science,  in  the  light  of  the  brain  and 
heart  of  the  nineteenth  century,  is  this  book  true  ?  The  gentlemen  who 
wrote  it  begins  by  telling  us  that  God  made  the  universe  out  of  nothing. 
That  I  cannot  conceive;  it  may  be  so,  but  I  cannot  conceive  it.  Nothing, 
regarded  in  the  light  of  raw  material,  is,  to  my  mind,  a  decided  and  dis- 
astrous failure.  I  cannot  imagine  of  nothing  being  made  into  something, 
any  more  than  I  can  of  something  being  changed  back  into  nothing.  I 
cannot  conceive  of  force  aside  from  matter,  because  force  to  be  force  must 
be  active,  and  unless  there  is  matter  there  is  nothing  for  force  to  act  upon, 
and  consequently  it  cannot  be  active.  So  I  simply  say  I  cannot  compre- 
hend it.  I  cannot  beileve  it.  I  may  roast  for  this,  but  it  is  my  honest 
opinion.  The  next  thing  he  proceeds  to  tell  us  is  that  God  divided  the 
darkness  from  the  light;  and  right  here  let  me  say  when  I  speak  about 
God  I  simply  mean  the  being  described  by  the  Jews.  There  may  be 
in  immensity  some  being  beneath  whose  wing  the  universe  exists,  whose 
•very  thought  is  a  glittering  star,  but  I  know  nothing  about  Him, — not 
the  slig  test, — and  this  afternoon  I  am  simply  talking  about  the  being 
described  by  the  Jewish  people.  When  I  say  God,  I  mean  Him.  Moses 
describes  God  dividing  the  light  from  the  darkness.  I  suppose  that  at 


"MISTAKES  OF  MOSES."  101 

that  time  they  must  have  been  mixed.  You  can  readily  see  how  light  and 
darkness  can  get  mixed.  They  must  have  been  entities.  The  reason  I 
think  so  is  because  in  that  same  book  I  find  that  darkness  overspread 
Egypt  so  thick  that  it  could  be  felt,  and  they  used  to  have  on  exhibition 
in  Rome  a  bottle  of  the  darkness  that  once  overspread  Egypt.  The  gen- 
tleman who  wrote  this  in  imagination  saw  God  dividing  light  from  the 
darkness.  I  am  sure  the  man  who  wrote  it,  believed  darkness  to  be  an 
entity,  a  something,  a  tangible  thing  that  can  be  mixed  with  light. 

The  next  thing  that  he  informs  us  is  that  God  divided  the  waters  above 
the  firmanent  from  those  below  the  firmanent.  The  man  who  wrote  that 
believed  the  firmanent  to  be  a  solid  affair.  And  that  is  what  the  goda 
did.  You  recollect  the  gods  came  down  and  made  love  to  the  daughters 
of  men — and  I  never  blamed  them  for  it.  I  have  never  read  a  description 
of  any  heaven  I  would  not  leave  on  the  same  errand.  That  is  where  the 
gods  lived.  That  is  where  they  kept  the  water.  It  was  solid.  That  is 
the  reason  the  people  prayed  for  rain.  They  believed  that  an  angel  could 
take  a  lever,  raise  a  window  and  let  out  the  desired  quantity.  I  find  in  the 
Psalms  that  "  He  bowed  the  heavens  and  came  down;"  and  we  read  that 
the  children  of  men  built  a  tower  to  reach  the  heavens  and  climb  into  the 
abode  of  the  gods.  The  man  who  wrote  that  believed  the  firmanent  to 
be  solid.  He  knew  nothing  about  the  laws  of  evaporation.  It  He  did  not 
know  that  the  sun  wooed  with  amorous  kiss  the  waves  of  the  sea,  and 
that,  disappointed,  their  vaporous  sighs  changed  to  tears  and  fell  again 
as  rain.  The  next  thing  he  tells  us  is  that  the  grass  began  to  grow,  and 
the  branches  of  the  trees  laughed  into  blossom,  and  the  grass  ran  up  the 
shoulder  of  the  hills,  and  yet  not  a  solitary  ray  of  light  had  left  the 
eternal  quiver  of  the  sun.  Not  a  blade  of  grass  had  ever  been  touched 
by  a  gleam  of  light.  And  I  do  not  think  that  grass  will  grow  to 
hurt  without  a  gleam  of  sunshine.  I  think  the  man  who  wrote  that 
simply  made  a  mistake,  and  is  excusable  to  a  certain  degree.  The  next 
day  he  made  the  sun  and  moon — the  sun  to  rule  the  day  and  the  moon  to 
rule  the  night.  Do  you  think  the  man  who  wrote  that  knew  anything 
about  the  size  of  the  sun  ?  I  think  he  thought  it  was  about  three  feet  in 
diameter,  because  I  find  in  some  book  that  the  sun  was  stopped  a  whole 
day,  to  give  a  general  named  Joshua  time  to  kill  a  few  more  Amalekites; 
and  the  moon  was  stopped  also.  Now  it  seems  to  me  that  the  sun  would 
give  light  enough  without  stopping  the  moon;  but  as  they  were  in  the 
stopping  business  they  did  it  just  for  devilment.  At  another  time,  we 
read,  the  sun  was  turned  ten  degrees  backward  to  convince  Hezekiah 
that  he  was  not  going  to  die  of  a  boil.  How  much  easier  it  would  have 
been  to  cure  the  boil.  The  man  who  wrote  that  thought  the  sun  was  two 
or  three  feet  in  diameter,  and  could  be  stopped  and  pulled  around  like  the- 


102  MISTAKES  OF  INGERSOLL. 

inn  and  moon  in  a  theatre.  Do  you  know  that  the  sun  throws  out  every 
second  of  time  as  much  heat  as  could  be  generated  by  burning  eleven 
thousand  millions  tons  of  coal?  I  don't  believe  he  knew  that,  or  that  he 
knew  the  motion  of  the  earth.  I  don't  believe  he  knew  that  it  was  turn- 
ing: on  its  axis  at  the  rate  of  a  thousand  miles  an  hour,  because  if  he  did, 
he  would  have  understood  the  immensity  of  heat  that  would  have  been 
generated  by  stopping  the  world.  It  has  been  calculated  by  one  of  the 
best  mathematicians  and  astronomers  that  to  stop  the  world  would  cause 
as  rnucu  h  at  as  it  would  take  to  burn  a  lump  of  solid  coal  three  times  as 
big  as  the  globe.  And  yet  we  find  in  that  book  that  the  sun  was  not  only 
stopped,  but  turned  back  ten  degrees,  simply  to  convince  a  gentleman 
that  he  was  not  going  to  die  of  a  boil.  They  may  say  I  will  be  damned 
if  I  do  not  believe  that,  and  I  tell  them  I  will  if  I  do. 

Then  he  gives  us  the  history  of  astronomy,  and  he  givos  it  to  us  in  five 
words:  "He  made  the  stars  also."  He  came  very  near  forgetting  the 
stars.  Do  you  believe  that  the  man  who  wrote  that  knew  that  there  are 
stars  as  much  larger  than  this  earth  as  this  earth  is  larger  than  the  apple 
which  Adam  and-  Eve  are  said  to  have  eaten?  Do  you  believe  that  he 
knew  that  this  world  is  but  a  speck  in  the  shining,  glittering  universe  of 
existence  ?  I  would  gather  from  that  that  he  made  the  stars  after  he  got 
the  world  done.  The  telescope,  in  reading  the  infinite  leaves  of  the 
heavens,  has  ascertained  that  light  travels  at  the  rate  of  192,000  miles 
per  second,  and  it  would  require  millions  of  years  to  come  from  some  of 
the  stars  to  this  earth.  Yet  the  beams  of  those  stars  mingle  in  our 
atmosphere,  so  that  if  those  distant  orbs  were  fashioned  when  this  world 
began,  we  must  have  been  whirling  in  space  not  six  thousand,  but  many 
millions  of  years.  Do  you  believe  the  man  who  wrote  that  as  a  history 
of  astronomy  really  knew  that  this  world  was  but  a  speck  compared  with 
millions  of  sparkling  orbs?  I  do  not.  He  then  proceeds  to  tell  us  ihat 
God  made  fish  and  cattle,  and  that  man  and  woman  were  created  male 
and  female.  The  first  account  stops  at  the  second  vers^-  of  the  second 
chapter.  You  see,  the  Bible  originally  was  not  divided  into  chapters; 
the  first  Bible  that  was  ever  divided  into  chapters  in  our  language  was 
made  in  the  year  of  grace  1550.  The  Bible  was  originally  written  in  the 
Hebrew  language,  and  the  Hebrew  language  at  that  time  had  no  vowels 
in  writing.  It  was  written  entirely  with  consonants,  and  without  being 
divided  into  chapters  or  into  versos,  and  there  was  no  system  of  punctu- 
ation whatever.  After  you  go  home  to-ni^ht  write  an  English  sen  ence 
or  two  with  only  consonants  close  toircthfr,  and  you  will  find  that  it  will 
take  twice  as  much  inspiration  t»  read  it  as  it  did  to  write  it.  When  the 
Bible  was  divided  into  versefi  an"  rim  piers,  the  divisions  were  not  always 
correct,  and  so  the  division  between  the  first  and  second  chapter  of  Gen- 


"MISTAKES  OF  MOSES."  103 

esis  is  not  in  the  right  place.  The  second  account  of  the  creation  com- 
mences at  the  third  verse,  and  it  differs  from  the  first  in  two  essential 
points.  In  the  first  account  man  is  the  last  made;  in  the  second,  man  is 
made  before  the  beasts.  In  the  first  account,  man  is  made  "  male  and 
female;  "  in  the  second  only  a  man  is  made,  and  there  is  no  intention  of 
making  a  woman  whatever. 

You  will  find  by  reading  that  second  chapter  that  God  tried  to  palm 
off  on  Adam  a  beast  as  his  helpmeet.  Everybody  talks  about  the  Bible 
and  nobody  reads  it;  that  is  the  reason  it  is  so  generally  believed.  I  am 
probably  the  only  man  in  the  United  States  who  has  read  the  Bible 
through  this  year.  I  have  wasted  that  time,  but  I  had  a  purpose  in 
view.  Just  read  it,  and  you  will  find,  about  the  twenty-third  verse,  that 
God  caused  all  the  animals  to  walk  before  Adam  in  order  that  he  might 
name  them.  And  the  animals  came  like  a  menagerie  into  town,  and  as 
Adam  looked  at  all  the  crawlers,  jumpers  and  creepers,  this  God  stood  by 
to  see  what  he  would  call  them.  After  this  procession  passed,  it  was 
pathetically  remarked,  "Yet  was  there  not  found  any  helpmeet  for 
Adam. ' '  Adam  didn't  see  anything  that  he  could  fancy.  And  I  am  glad 
he  didn't.  If  he  had,  there  would  not  have  been  a  free-thinker  in  .this 
world;  we  should  have  all  died  orthodox.  And  finding  Adam  was  so  par- 
ticular, God  had  to  make  him  a  helpmeet,  and  having  used  up  the  nothing 
he  was  compelled  to  take  part  of  the  man  to  make  the  woman  with,  and 
he  took  from  the  man  a  rib.  How  did  he  get  it?  And  then  imagine  a 
God  with  a  bone  in  his  hand,  and  about  to  start  a  woman,  trying  to  make 
up  his  mind  whether  to  make  a  blonde  or  a  brunette. 

Right  here  it  is  only  proper  that  I  should  warn  you  of  the  consequences 
of  laughing  at  any  story  in  the  holy  Bible.  When  you  come  to  die,  your 
laughing  at  this  story  will  be  a  thorn  in  your  pillow.  As  you  look  back 
upon  the  record  of  your  life,  no  matter  how  many  men  you  have  wrecked 
and  ruined,  and  no  matter  how  many  women  you  have  deceived  and 
deserted — all  that  may  be  forgiven  you;  but  if  you  recollect  that  you  have 
laughed  at  God's  book  you  will  see  through  the  shadows  of  death, 
the  leering  looks  of  fiends  and  the  forked  tongues  of  devils.  Let  me  show 
you  how  it  will  be:  For  instance,  it  is  the  day  of  judgment.  When  the 
man  is  called  up  by  the  recording  secretary,  or  whoever  does  the  cross- 
examining,  he  says  to  his  soul:  "  Where  are  you  from?"  "  I  am  from 
the  world."  "Yes,  sir.  What  kind  of  a  man  were  you?"  "Well,  I 
don't  like  to  talk  about  myself."  "But  you  have  to.  What  kind  of  a 
man  were  you?  "  "  Well,  I  was  a  good  fellow;  I  loved  my  wife,  I  loved 
my  children.  My  home  was  my  heaven;  my  fireside  was  my  paradise, 
and  to  sit  there  and  see  the  lights  and  shadows  falling  on  the  faces  of 
those  I  love,  that  to  me  was  a  perpetual  joy.  I  never  gave  one  of  them  a 


104  MISTAKES  OF  INGEBSOLL. 

•olitary  moment  of  pain.  I  don't  owe  a  dollar  in  the  world,  and  I  left 
enough  to  pay  my  funeral  expenses  and  keep  the  wolf  of  want  from  the 
door  of  the  house  I  loved.  That  is  the  kind  of  a  man  I  am."  "  Did  you 
belong  to  any  church?"  "I  did  not.  They  were  too  narrow  forme. 
They  were  always  expecting  to  be  happy  simply  because  somebody  else 
was  to  be  damned."  "  Well,  did  you  believe  that  rib  story?"  "  What  rib- 
story?  Do  you  mean  that  Adam  and  Eve  business?  No,  I  did  not.  To 
tell  you  the  God's  truth,  that  was  a  little  more  than  I  could  swallow." 
"To  hell  with  him!  Next.  Where  are  you  from?"  "  I'm  from  the 
world,  too."  "Do  you  belong  to  any  church?"  "Yes,  sir,  and  to  the 
Young  Men's  Christian  Association."  "What  is  your  business?" 
"Cashier  in  a  bank."  "  Did  you  ever  run  off  with  any  of  the  money?" 
"I  don't  like  to  tell,  sir."  "Well,  but  you  have  to."  "Yes,  sir;  Idid." 
"What  kind  of  a  bank  did  you  have?"  "  A  savings  bank."  "How 
much  did  you  run  off  with?"  "  One  hundred  thousand  dollars."  "  Did 
you  take  anything  else  along  with  you?"  "Yes,  sir."  "What?"  "I 
took  my  neighbor's  wife."  "  Did  you  have  a  wife  and  children  of  your 
own?"  "Yes,  sir."  "  And  you  deserted  them?"  "  Oh,  yes;  bu  such 
was  my  confidence  in  God  that  I  believed  he  would  take  care  of  them." 
"  Have  you  heard  of  them  since?"  "  No,  sir."  "  Did  you  believe  that 
rib  story?"  "Ah,  bless  your  soul,  yes!  I  believe  all  of  it,  sir;  I  often 
used  to  be  sorry  that  there  were  not  harder  stones  yet  in  the  Bible,  so  that 
I  could  show  what  my  faith  could  do."  "  You  believed  it,  did  you?" 
"Yes,  with  all  my  heart."  "Give  him  a  harp." 

I  simply  wanted  to  show  you  how  important  it  is  to  believe  these  sto- 
ries. Of  all  the  authors  in  the  world  God  hates  a  critic  the  worst.  Hav- 
ing got  this  woman  done  he  brought  her  to  the  man,  and  they  started 
housekeeping,  and  a  few  minutes  afterward  a  snake  came  through  a  crack 
in  the  fence  and  commenced  to  talk  with  her  on  the  subject  of  fruit.  She 
was  not  acquainted  in  the  neighborhood,  and  she  did  not  k/iow  whether 
snakes  talked  or  not,  or  whether  they  knew  anything  about  the  apples  or 
not.  Well,  she  was  misled,  and  the  husband  ate  some  of  those  apples 
and  laid  it  all  on  his  wife;  and  ^here  is  where  the  mistake  was  made. 
God  ought  to  have  rubbed  him  out  once.  He  might  have  known  that  no 
good  could  come  of  starting  the  world  with  a  man  like  that.  They  were 
turned  out.  Then  the  trouble  commenced,  and  people  got  worse  and 
worse.  God,  you  must  recollect,  was  holding  the  reins  of  government, 
but  he  did  nothing  for  them.  He  allowed  thorn  to  live  six  hundred  and 
Bixty-nine  years  without  knowing  their  A.  B.  C.  He  never  started  a 
school,  not  even  a  Sunday  school.  He  didn't  even  koep  His  own  boys  at, 
home.  And  the  world  got  worse  every  day,  and  finally  he  concluded  to 
drown  them.  Yet  that  same  god  has  the  impudence  to  tell  me  how  to 


\ 

"MISTAKES  OF  MOSES."  105 

raise  my  own  children.  What  would  you  think  of  a  neighbor,  who  had  just 
killed  his  babes  giving1  you  his  views  on  domestic  economy?  God  found 
that  he  could  do  nothing  with  them  and  He  said;  "  I  will  drown  them 
all,  except  a  few."  And  He  picked  out  a  fellow  by  the  name  of  Noah, 
that  had  been  a  bachelor  for  five  hundred  years.  If  I  had  to  drown  any- 
body, I  would  have  drowned  him.  I  believe  that  Noah  had  then  been 
married  something  like  one  hundred  years.  God  told  him  to  build  a  boat, 
and  he  built  one  five  hundred  feet  long,  eighty  or  ninety  feet  broad  and 
fifty-five  feet  high,  with  one  door  shutting  on  the  outside,  and  one  win- 
dow twenty-two  inches  square.  If  Noah  had  any  hobby  in  the  world  it 
was  vetilation.  Then  into  this  ark  he  put  a  certain  number  of  all  the 
animals  in  the  world.  Naturalists  have  ascertained  that  at  that  time 
there  were  at  least  eleven  hundred  thousand  insects  necessary  to  go  into 
the  ark,  about  forty  thousand  mammalia,  sixteen  hundred  reptilia,  to  say 
nothing  about  the  mastodon,  the  elephant  and  the  animalculse,  of  which 
thousands  live  upon  a  single  leaf  and  which  cannot  be  seen  by  the  naked 
eye.  Noah  had  no  microscope,  and  yet  he  had  to  pick  them  out  by  pairs. 
You  have  no  idea  the  trouble  that  man  had.  Some  say  that  the  flood 
was  not  universal,  that  it  was  partial.  Why  then  did  God  say:  "  I  will 
destroy  every  living  thing  beneath  the  heavens."  If  it  was  partial  why 
did  Noah  save  the  birds?  An  ordinary  bird,  tending  strictly  to  business, 
can  beat  a  partial  flood.  Why  did  he  put  the  birds  in  there — the  eagles,  the 
vultures,  the  condors — if  it  was  only  a  partial  flood?  And  how  did  he 
get  them  in  there?  Were  they  inspired  to  go  there,  or  did  he  drive  them' 
up?  Did  the  polar  bear  leave  his  home  of  ice  and  start  for  the  tropics 
inquiring  for  Noah;  or  could  the  kangaroo  come  from  Australia  unless 
he  was  inspired,  or  somebody  was  behind  him?  Then  there  are  animals 
on  this  hemisphere  not  on  that.  How  did  he  get  them  across?  And 
there  are  some  animals  which  would  be  very  unpleasant  in  an  ark  unless 
the  ventilation  was  very  perfect. 

When  he  got  the  animals  in  the  ark,  God  shut  the  door  and  Noah 
pulled  down  the  window.  And  then  it  began  to  rain,  and  it  kept  on 
raining  until  the  water  went  twenty- nine  feet  over  the  highest  mountain. 
Chimborazo,  then  as  now,  lifted  its  head  above  the  clouds,  and  then  as 
now,  there  sat  the  condor.  And  yet  the  waters  rose  and  rose  over  every 
mountain  in  the  world — twenty-nine  feet  above  the  highest  peaks,  cov- 
ered with  snow  and  ice.  How  deep  were  these  waters?  About  five  and 
a  half  miles.  How  long  did  it  rain?  Forty  days.  How  much  did  it 
have  to  rain  a  day?  About  eight  hundred  feet.  How  is  that  for  damp- 
ness ?  No  wonder  they  said  the  windows  of  the  heavens  were  open.  If  I 
had  been  there  I  would  have  said  the  w'aole  side  of  the  house  was  out.  How 
long  were  they  in  this  ark  ?  A  year  and  ten  days,  floating  around  with 


106  MISTAKES  OF  INGERSOLL. 

no  rudder,  no  sail,  nobody  on  the  outside  at  all.  The  window  was  shut, 
and  there  was  no  door,  except  the  one  that  shut  on  the  outside.  Who 
ran  this  ark — who  took  care  of  it  ?  Finally  it  came  down  on  Mount  Ararat, 
a  peak  seventeen  thousand  feet  above  the  level  of  the  sea,  with  about 
three  thousand  feet  of  snow,  and  it  stopped  there  simply  to  give  the  ani- 
mals from  the  tropics  a  chance.  Then  Noah  opened  the  window  and  got 
a  breath  of  fresh  air,  and  he  let  out  all  the  animals;  and  then  Noah  took 
a  drink,  and  God  made  a  bargain  with  him  that  He  would  not  drown  us 
/any  more,  and  He  put  a  rainbow  in  the  clouds  and  said:  "  When  I  see 
that  I  will  recollect  that  I  have  promised  not  to  drown  you."  Because 
if  it  was  not  for  that  He  is  apt  to  drown  us  at  any  moment.  Now  can 
anybody  believe  that  that  is  the  origin  of  the  rainbow?  Are  you  not 
all  familiar  with  the  natural  causes  which  bring  those  beautiful  arches 
before  our  eyes  ?  Then  the  people  started  out  again,  and  they  were  as 
bad  as  before.  Here  let  me  ask  why  God  did  not  make  Noah  in  the  first 
place  ?  He  knew  he  would  have  to  drown  Adam  and  Eve  and  all  his 
family.  Then  another  thing,  why  did  He  want  to  drown  the  animals  ? 
What  had  they  done?  What  crime  had  they  committed?  It  is  very 
hard  to  answer  these  questions — that  is,  for  a  man  who  has  only  been 
born  once.  After  a  while  they  tried  to  build  a  tower  to  get  into  heaven, 
and  the  gods  heard  about  it  and  said :  "  Let's  go  down  and  see  what  man 
is  up  to."  They  came,  and  found  things  a  great  deal  worse  than  they 
thought,  and  thereupon  they  confounded  the  language  to  prevent  them 
succeeding,  so  that  the  fellow  up  above  could  not  shout  down  "  mortar  " 
or  /'  brick  "  to  the  one  below,  and  they  had  to  give  it  up.  Is  it  possible 
that  any  one  believes  that  that  is  the  reason  why  we  have  the  variety  of 
languages  in  the  world?  Do  you  know  that  language  is  born  of  human 
experience,  and  is  a  physical  science?  Do  you  know  that  every  word  has 
been  suggested  in  some  way  by  the  feelings  or  observations  of  man — that 
^here  are  words  as  tender  as  the  dawn,  as  serene  as  the  stars,  and  others 
as  wild  as  the  beasts?  Do  you  know  that  language  is  dying  and  being 
born  continually — that  every  language  has  its  cemetery  and  cradle,  its 
bud  and  blossom,  and  withered  leaf?  Man  has  loved,  enjoyed  and  suf- 
fered, and  language  is  simply  the  expression  he  gives  those  experiences. 
•  Then  the  world  began  to  divide,  and  the  Jewish  nation  was  started. 
Now  I  want  to  Bay  that  at  one  time  your  ancestors,  like  mine,  were  bar- 
barians. If  the  Jewish  people  had  to  write  these  books  now  they  would  be 
civilized  books,  and  I  do  not  hold  them  responsible  for  what  their  ancestors 
did.  We  find  the  Jewish  people  first  in  Canaan,  and  there  were  seventy 
of  them,  counting  Joseph  and  his  children  already  in  Egypt.  They  lived 
two  hundred  and  fifteen  years,  and  they  then  went  down  into  Egypt  and 
stayed  there  two  hundred  and  fifteen  yean;  they  were  four  hundred  and 


"MISTAKES  OF  MOSES."  107 

thirty  years  in  Canaan  and  Egypt.  How  many  did  they  have  when 
they  went  to  Egypt?  Seventy.  How  many  were  they  at  the  end 
of  two  hundred  and  fifteen  years?  Three  millions.  That  is  a  good 
many.  We  had  at  the  time  of  the  Revolution  in  this  country  three  mil- 
lions of  people.  Since  that  time  there  have  been  four  doubles,  until  we 
have  forty-eight  millions  to-day.  How  many  would  the  Jews  number  at 
the  same  ratio  in  two  hundred  and  fifteen  years?  Call  it  eight  doubles 
and  we  have  forty  thousand.  But  instead  of  forty  thousand  they  had 
three  millions.  How  do  I  know  they  had  three  millions?  Because  they 
had  six  hundred  thousand  men  of  war.  For  every  honest  voter  in  the 
State  of  Illinois  there  will  be  five  other  people,  and  there  are  always  more 
voters  than  men  of  war.  They  must  have  had  at  the  lowest  possible  esti- 
mate three  millions  of  people  Is  that  true?  Is  there  a  minister  in  the 
city  of  Chicago  .that  will  certify  to  his  own  idiocy  by  claiming  that  they 
could  have  increased  to  three  millions  by  that  time?  If  there  is,  let  him  / 
fay  so.  Do  not  let  him  talk  about  the  civilizing  influence  of  a  lie. 

When  they  got  into  the  desert  they  took  a  census  to  see  how  many  first- 
born children  there  were.  They  found  they  had  twenty-two  thousand 
two  hundred  and  seventy-three  first  born  males.  It  is  reasonable  to  sup- 
po  e  there  was  about  the  same  number  of  first  born  girls,  or  forty-five 
thousand  first  born  children.  There  must  have  been  about  as  many 
mothers  as  first-born  children.  Dividing  three  millions  by  forty-five 
thousand  mothers,  and  you  will  find  that  the  women  in  Israel  had  to  have 
on  the  average  sixty-eight  children  apiece.  Some  stories  are  too  thin. 
This  is  too  thick.  Now,  we  know  that  among  three  million  people  there 
will  be  about  three  hundred  births  a  day;  and  according  to  the  Old  Testa- 
ment, whenever  a  child  was  born  the  motaer  had  to  make  a  sacrifice — a 
sin-offering  for  the  crime  of  having  been  a  mother.  If  there  is  in  this  uni- 
verse anything  that  is  infinitely  pure,  it  is  a  mother  with  her  child  in  her 
arms.  Every  woman  had  to  have  a  sacrifice  of  a  couple  of  doves,  a  couple 
of  pigeons,  and  the  priests  had  to  eat  those  pigeons  in  the  most  holy  place. 
At  that  time  there  were  at  least  three  hundred  births  a  day,  and  the  priests 
had  to  cook  and  eat  those  pigeons  in  the  most  holy  place;  and  at  that 
time  there  were  only  three  priests.  Two  hundred  birds  apiece  per  day! 
I  look  upon  them  as  the  champion  bird-eaters  of  the  world. 

Then  where  were  these  Jews?  They  were  upon  the  desert  of  Sinai; 
and  Sahara  compared  to  that  is  a  garden.  Imagine  an  ocean  of  lava,  torn 
by  storm  and  vexed  by  tempest,  suddenly  gazed  at  by  a  Gorgon  and 
changed  to  stone.  Such  was  the  desert  of  Sinai.  The  whole  supplies  of 
the  world  could  not  maintain  three  millions  of  people  on  the  desert  of 
Sinai  for  forty  years.  It  would  cost  one  hundred  thousand  millions  of 
dollars,  and  would  bankrupt  Christendom.  And  yet  there  they  were 


108  MISTAKES  OF  INGERSOLL. 

with' flocks  and  herds — so  many  that  they  sacrificed  over  one  hundred  and 
fifty  thousand  first-born  lambs  at  one  time.  It  would  require  millions  of 
acres  to  support  those  flocks,  and  yet  there  was  no  blade  of  grass,  and 
there  is  no  account  of  it  raining  baled  hay.  They  sacrificed  one  hundred 
and  fifty  thousand  lambs,  and  the  blood  had  all  to  be  sprinkled  on  the 
altar  within  two  hours,  and  there  were  only  three  priests.  They  would 
have  to  sprinkle  the  blood  of  twelve  hundred  and  fifty  lambs  per  minute. 
Then  all  the  people  gathered  in  front  of  the  tabernacle  eighteen  feet  deep. 
Three  millions  of  people  would  make  a  column  six  miles  long.  Some 
reverend  gentlemen  say  they  were  ninety  feet  deep.  Well,  that  would 
make  a  column  of  over  a  mile. 

Where  were  these  people  going?  They  were  going  to  the  Holy  Land. 
How  large  was  it?  Twelve  thousand  square  miles — one-fifth  the  si/.e  of 
Illinois — a  frightful  country,  covered  with  rocks  and  desolation.  There 
never  was  a  land  agent  in  the  city  of  Chicago  that  would  not  have  blushed 
with  shame  to  have  described  that  land  as  flowing  with  milk  and  honey. 
Do  you  believe  that  God  Almighty  ever  went  into  partnership  with 
hornets?  Is  it  necessary  unto  salvation?  God  said  to  the  Jews:  "  I  will 
Bend  hornets  before  you,  to  drive  out  the  Canaanites."  How  would  a 
hornet  know  a  Canaanite?  Is  it  possible  that  God  inspired  the  hornets 
— that  he  granted  letters  of  marque  and  reprisal  to  hornets?  I  am 
willing  to  admit  that  nothing  in  the  world  would  be  better  calculated  to 
make  a  man  leave  his  native  country  than  a  few  hornets  attending 
strictly  to  business.  God  said  "Kill  the  Canaanites  slowly."  Why? 
"  Lest  the  beasts  of  the  field  increase  upon  you."  How  many  Jews  were 
there?  Three  millions.  Going  to  a  country,  how  large?  Twelve  thou- 
sand square  miles.  But  were  there  nations  already  in  this  Holy  Land? 
Yes,  there  were  seven  nations  "mightier  than  the  Jews."  Say  there 
would  be  twenty-one  millions  when  they  got  there,  or  twenty-four  millions 
with  themselves.  Yet  they  were  told  to  kill  them  slowly,  lest  the  beasts 
of  the  field  increase  upon  them.  Is  there  a  man  in  Chicago  that  believes 
that!  Then  what  docs  he  teach  it  to  little  children  for?  Let  him  tell 
the  truth. 

So  the  same  God  went  into  partnership  with  snakes.  The  children 
of  Israel  lived  on  manna — one  account  says  all  the  time,  and  another  only 
a  little  while.  That  is  the  reason  there  is  a  chance  for  commentaries, 
and  you  can  exercise  faith.  If  the  book  was  reasonable  everybody  could 
get  to  heaven  in  a  moment.  But  whenever  it  looks  as  if  it  could  not  be 
that  way  and  you  believe,  you  arc  almost  a  saint,  and  when  you  know  it 
is  not  that  way  and  believe  you  are  a  saint.  He  fed  them  on  manna. 
Now  manna  is  very  peculiar  stuff.  It  would  melt  in  the  sun,  and  yet 
they  used  to  cook  it  by  seething  and  baking.  I  would  as  soon  think  of 


"MISTAKES  OF  MOSES."  109 

frying  snow  or  boiling  icicles.  But  this  manna  had  other  peculiar  qual- 
ities. Jt  shrank  to  an  omer.  no  matter  how  much  they  gathered,  and 
swelled  up  to  an  omer,  no  matter  how  little  they  gathered.  What  a 
magnificent  thing  manna  would  be  for  the  currency,  shrinking  and  swel- 
ling according  to  the  volume  of  business!  There  was  not  a  change  in  the 
bill  of  fare  for  forty  years,  and  they  knew  that  God  could  just  as  well  give 
them  three  square  meals  a  day.  They  remembered  about  the  cucumbers, 
and  the  melons,  and  the  leeks  and  the  onions  of  Egypt,  and  they  said: 
"  Our  souls  abhoreth  this  light  bread."  Then  this  God  got  mad — you 
know  cooks  are  always  touchy — and  thereupon  He  sent  snakes  to  bite 
the  men,  women  and  children.  He  also  sent  them  quails  in  wrath  and 
anger,  and  while  they  had  the  flesh  between  their  teeth,  He  struck 
thousands  of  them  dead.  He  always  acted  in  that  way,  all  of  a  sudden. 
People  had  no  chance  to  explain — no  chance  to  move  for  a  new  trial — 
nothing.  I  want  to  know  if  it  is  reasonable  he  should  kill  people  for 
asking  for  one  change  of  diet  in  forty  years.  Suppose  you  had  been 
boarding  with  an  old  lady  for  forty  years,  and  she  never  had  a  solitary 
thing  on  her  table  but  hash,  and  one  morning  you  said :  "  My  soul  abhor- 
eth hash.  "  What  would  you  say  if  she  let  a  basketful  of  rattlesnakes 
upon  you?  Now  is  it  possible  for  people  to  believe  this?  The  Bible 
says  that  their  clothes  did  not  wax  old,  they  did  not  get  shiny  at  the 
knees  or  elbows;  and  their  shoes  did  not  wear  out.  They  grew  right 
along  with  them.  The  little  boy  starting  out  with  his  first  pants  grew 
up  and  his  pants  grew  with  him.  Some  commentators  have  insisted  that 
angels  attended  to  their  wardrobes.  I  never  could  believe  it.  Just  think 
of  one  angel  hunting  another  and  saying:  "  There  goes  another  button." 
I  cannot  believe  it. 

There  must  be  a  mistake  somewhere  or  somehow.  Do  you  believe 
the  real  God — if  there  is  one — ever  killed  a  man  for  making  hair-oil? 
And  yet  you  find  in  the  Pentateuch  that  God  gave  Moses  a  recipe  for 
making  hair-oil  to  grease  Aaron's  beard;  and  i-aid  if  anybody  made  the 
same  hair- oil  he  should  be  killed.  And  He  gave  him  a  formula  for 
making  ointment,  and  He  said  if  anybody  made  ointment  like  that  he 
should  be  killed.  I  think  that  is  carrying  patent-laws  to  excess.  There 
must  be  some  mistake  about  it.  I  cannot  imagine  the  infinite  Creator 
of  all  the  shinoig  worlds  giving  a  recipe  for  hair-oil.  Do  you  believe 
that  the  real  God  came  down  to  Mount  Sinai  with  a  lot  of  patterns  for 
making  a  tabernacle — patterns  for  tongs,  for  snuffers,  and  such  things? 
Do  you  believe  that  God  came  down  on  that  mountain  and  told  Moses 
how  to  cut  a  coat,  and  how  it  should  be  trimmed?  What  would  an  infi- 
nite God  care  on  which  side  he  cut  the  breast,  what  color  the  fringe  was, 
or  how  the  buttons  were  placed?  Do  you  believe  God  told  Moses  to 


110  MISTAKES  OF  INGLRSOLL. 

make  curtains  of  fine  linen?  Where  did  they  get  their  flax  in  the  des- 
ert? How  did  they  weave  it?  Did  He  tell  him  to  make  things  of  gold, 
silver  and  precious  stones,  when  they  hadn't  them?  Is  it  possible  that 
God  told  them  not  to  eat  any  fruit  until  after  the  fourth  year  of  planting 
the  trees  ?  You  see  all  these  things  were  written  hundreds  of  years  after- 
wards, and  the  priests,  in  order  to  collect  the  tithes,  dated  the  laws  back. 
They  did  not  say,  "  This  is  our  law,"  but,  "  Thus  said  God  to  Moses  in 
the  wilderness."  Now,  can  you  believe  that?  Imagine  a  scene:  The 
eternal  God  tells  Moses,  "  Here  is  the  way  I  want  you  to  consecrate  my 
priests.  Catch  a  sheep  and  cut  his  throat."  I  never  could  understand 
why  God  wanted  a  sheep  killed  just  because  a  man  had  done  a  mean 
trick;  perhaps  it  was  because  his  priests  were  fond  of  mutton.  He  tells 
Moses  further  to  take  some  of  the  blood  and  put  it  on  his  right  thumb,  a 
little  on  his  right  ear,  and  a  little  on  his  right  big  toe?  Do  you  believe 
God  ever  gave  such  instructions  for  the  consecration  of  His  priests?  If 
you  should  see  the  South  Sea  Islanders  going  through  such  a  perform- 
ance you  could  not  keep  your  face  straight.  And  will  you  tell  me  that  it 
had  to  be  done  in  order  to  consecrate  a  man  to  the  service  of  the  infinite 
God?  Supposing  theljlood  got  on  the  left  toe? 

Then  we  find  in  his  book  how  God  went  to  work  to  make  the  Egyp- 
tians let  the  Israelites  go.  Suppose  we  wish  to  make  a  treaty  with  the 
mikado  of  Japan,  and  Mr.  Hayes  sent  a  commissioner  there;  and  suppose 
he  should  employ  Hermann,  the  wonderful  German,  to  go  along  with 
him;  and  when  they  came  in  the  presence  of  the  mikado  Hermann  threw 
down  an  umbrella,  which  changed  into  a  turtle,  and  the  commissioner 
said :  "  That  is  my  certificate."  You  would  say  the  country  is  disgraced. 
You  would  say  the  president  of  a  republic  like  this  disgraces  himself  with 
jugglery.  Yet  we  are  told  God  sent  Moses  and  Aaron  before  Pharaoh, 
and  when  they  got  there  Moses  threw  down  a  stick  which  turned  into  a 
snake.  That  God  is  a  juggler — he  is  the  infinite  prestidigitator.  Is  that 
possible?  Was  that  really  a  snake,  or  was  it  the  appearance  of  a  snake? 
If  it  was  the  appearance  of  a  snake,  it  was  a  fraud.  Then  the  necroman- 
cers of  Egypt  were  sent  for,  and  they  threw  down  sticks,  which  turned 
into  6n;ikes,  but  those  were  not  so  large  as  Moses'  snakes,  which  swal- 
lowed them.  1  maintain  that  it  is  jnst  as  hard  to  make  small  snakes  as 
it  is  to  make  large  ones;  the  only  diiference  is  that  to  make  largo  snakes 
either  larger  sticks  or  more  practice  is  required. 

Do  you  believe  that  God  rained  hail  on  the  innocent  cattle,  killing  them 
in  the  highways  and  in  the  field?  Why  should  he  inflict  punishment  on 
cattle  for  something  their  owners  had  done?  1  could  never  have  any 
respect  for  a  God  that  would  so  inflict  pain  upon  a  brute  beast  simply  on 
•vxount  of  the  crime  of  ita  owner.  Is  it  possible  that  God  worked  uiira- 


I 

r 
"MISTAKES  OF  MOSES."  Ill 

cles  to  convince  Pharaoh  that  slavery  was  wrong?  Why  did  he  not  tell 
Pharaoh  that  any  nation  founded  on  slavery  could  not  stand?  Why  did  he 
not  tell  him,  "  Your  government  is  founded  on  slavery,  and  it  will  go  down, 
and  the  sands  of  the  desert  will  hide  from  the  view  of  man  your  temples, 
your  altars,  and  your  fanes?  "  Why  did  he  not  speak  about  the  infamy 
of  slavery?  Because  he  believed  in  the  infamy  of  slavery  himself.  Can 
we  believe  that  God  will  allow  a  man  to  give  his  wife  the  right  of  divorce- 
ment and  make  the  mother  of  his  children  a  wanderer  and  a  vagrant. 
There  is  not  one  word  about  woman  in  the  Old  Testament  except  the  word 
of  shame  and  humiliation.  The  God  of  the  Bible  does  not  think  woman 
is  as  good  as  man.  She  was  never  worth  mentioning.  It  did  not  take 
the  pains  to  recount  the  death  of  the  mother  of  us  all.  I  have  no  respect 
for  any  book  that  does  not  treat  woman  as  the  equal  of  man.  And  if 
there  is  any  God  in  this  universe  who  thinks  more  of  me  than  he  thinks 
of  my  wife,  he  is  not  well  acquainted  with  both  of  us.  And  yet  they  say 
that  that  was  done  on  account  of  the  hardness  of  their  hearts;  and  that  was 
done  in  a  community  where  the  law  was  so  fierce  that  it  stoned  a  man  to 
death  for  picking  up  sticks  on  Sunday.  Would  it  not  have  been  better  / 
to  stone  to  death  every  man  who  abused  his  wife  and  allowed  them  to  / 
pick  up  sticks  on  account  of  the  hardness  of  their  hearts?  If  God  wanted  I 
to  take  those  Jews  from  Egypt  to  the  land  of  Canaan,  why  didn't  He  do- ' 
it  instantly  ?  If  He  was  going  to  do  a  miracle,  why  didn't  He  do  one 
worth  talking  about? 

After  God  had  killed  all  the  first-born  in  Egypt,  after  he  had  killed  all 
the  cattle,  still  Egypt  could  raise  an  army  that  could  put  to  flight  six  hun- 
dred thousand  men.  And  because  this  God  overwhelmed  the  Egyptian 
army,  he  bragged  about  it  for  a  thousand  years,  repeatedly  calling  the 
attention  of  thy  Jews  to  the  fact  that  he  overthrew  Pharaoh  and  his  hosts. 
Did  he  help  much  with  their  six  hundred  thousand  men?  We  find  by  the 
records  of  the  day  that  the  Egyptian  slanding  army  at  that  time  was 
never  more  than  one  hundred  thousand  men.  Must  we  believe  all  these  / 
stories  in  order  to  get  to  Heaven  when  we  die  ?  Must  we  judge  of  a  man's 
character  by  the  number  of  stories  he  believes?  Are  we  to  get  to  Heaven 
by  creed  or  by  deed?  That  is  the  question.  Shall  we  reason,  or  shall  we 
simply  believe?  Ah,  but  they  say  the  Bible  is  not  inspired  about  those 
little  things.  The  Bible  says  the  rabbit  and  the  hare  chew  the  cud.  But 
they  do  not.  They  have  a  tremulous  motion  of  the  lip.  But  the  Being 
that  made  them  says  they  chew  the  cud.  The  Bible,  therefore,  is  not 
inspim.1  in  natural  history.  Is  it  inspired  in  its  astrology?  No.  Well, 
what  is  it  inspired  in?  In  its  law?  Thousands  of  people  say  that  if  it 
had  not  been  for  the  ten  commandments  we  would  not  have  known  any 
better  than  to  rob  and  steal.  Suppose  a  man  planted  an  acre  of  potatoes,. 


OF  INC 


112  MISTAKES  OF  INGERSOLL. 

hoed  them  all  summer,  and  dug1  them  in  the  fall ;  and  suppose  a  man  had 
sat  upon  the  fence  all  the  time  and  watched  him;  do  you  believe  it  would 
be  necessary  for  that  man  to  road  the  ten  commandments  to  find  out  who, 
in  his  judgment,  had  a  right  to  take  those  potatoes?  All  laws  against 
larceny  have  been  made  by  industry  to  protect  the  fruits  of  its  labor. 
Why  is  there  a  law  ag-ainst  murder?  Simply  because  a  large  majority  of 
people  object  to  being  murdered.  That  is  all.  And  all  these  laws  were 
in  force  thousands  of  years  before  thcit  time. 

One  of  the  commandments  said  they  should  not  make  any  graven 
images,  and  that  was  the  death  of  art  in  Palestine.  No  sculptor  has 
ever  enriched  stone  with  the  divine  forms  of  beauty  in  that  country;  and 
any  commandment  that  is  the  dea^h  of  art  is  not  a  good  commandment. 
But  they  say  the  Bible  is  morally  inspired;  and  they  tell  me  there  is  no 
civilization  without  this  Bible.  Then  God  knows  that  just  as  well  as  you 
do.  God  always  knew  it,  and  if  you  can't  civilize  a  nation  without  a 
Bible,  why  didn't  God  give  every  nation  just  one  Bible  to  start  with? 
Why  did  God  allow  hundreds  of  thousands  and  billions  of  billions  to  go 
down  to  hell  just  for  the  lack  of  a  Bible?  They  say  that  it  is  morally  in- 
spired. Well,  let  us  examine  it.  I  want  to  be  fair  about  this  thing,  bo- 
cause  I  am  willing  to  stake  my  salvation  or  damnation  upon  this  ques- 
tion— whether  the  Bible  is  true  or  not.  I  say  it  is  not;  and  upon  that  I 
am  willing  to  wager  my  soul.  Is  there  a  woman  here  who  believes  in  the 
institution  of  polygamy?  Is  there  a  man  here  who  believes  in  that  in- 
famy? You  say:  "No,  we  do  not."  Then  you  are  better  than  your 
God  was  four  thousand  years  ago.  Four  thousand  years  ago  he  believed 
in  it,  taught  it  and  upheld  it.  I  pronounce  it  and  denounce  it  the  infa- 
my of  infamies.  It  robs  our  language  of  every  sweet  and  tender  word 
in  it.  It  takes  the  fireside  away  forever.  It  takes  the  meaning  out  of  the 
words  father,  mother,  sister,  brother,  and  turns  the  temple  of  love  into 
a  vile  den  where  crawl  the  slimy  snakes  of  lust  and  hatred.  I  was  in 
Utah  a  little  while  ago,  and  was  on  the  mountain  where  God  used  to  talk 
to  Brigham  Young.  He  never  said  anything  to  me.  I  said  it  was  just  as 
reasonable  that  God  in  the  nineteenth  century  should  talk  to  a  polygamist 
in  Utah  as  it  was  that  four  thousand  years  ago,  on  Mount  Sinai,  he  talked 
to  Moses  upon  that  hellish  and  damnable  question. 

I  have  no  love  for  any  God  who  believes  in  polygamy.  There  is  no 
heaven  on  this  earth  save  where  the  one  woman  loves  the  one  man  n.nf 
the  one  man  loves  the  one  woman.  1  guess  it  is  not  inspired  on  th« 
polygamy  question.  Maybe  it  is  inspired  about  religious  liberty.  (Jod 
•aya  that  if  anybody  dillers  with  you  about  religion,  "kill  him."  He 
told  His  peculiar  people,  "  If  any  one  toadies  a  different  religion,  kill 
himl "  lie  did  not  say,  "  Try  and  convince  him.  that  ho  is  wroiitf, "  but 


"MISTAKES  OF  MOSES."  113 

"kill  him!"  ITe  did  not  say,  "  I  am  in  the  miracle  business,  and  I  will 
convince  him;"  but  "kill  him."  He  said  to  every  husband,  "If  your  wife, 
that  you  love  as  you  love  your  own  soul,  says,  '  let  us  go  and  worship 
other  gods,' then  'thy  hand  shall  be  first  upon  her  and  she  shall  be 
stoned  with  stones  until  she  dies.'  "  Well,  now,  I  hate  a  God  of  that  kind, 
and  I  cannot  think  of  being  nearer  heaven  than  to  be  away  from  Him.  A 
God  tells  a  man  to  kill  his  wife  simply  because  she  differs  with  him  on 
religion !  If  the  real  God  were  to  tell  me  to  kill  my  wife,  I  would  not  do 
it.  If  you  had  lived  in  Palestine  at  that  time,  and  your  wife — the  muther  of 
your  children — had  woke  up  at  night  and  said:  "  I  am  tired  of  Jehovah. 
He  is  always  turning  up  that  board-bill.  He  is  always  telling  about 
whipping  the  Egyptians.  He  is  always  killing  somebody.  I  am  tired  of 
Him.  Let  us  worship  the  sun.  The  sun  has  clothed  the  world  in  beauty; 
it  has  covered  the  earth  with  green  and  flowers;  by  its  divine  light  I  first 
saw  your  face;  its  light  has  enabled  me  to  look  into  the  eyes  of  my  beautiful 
babe.  Let  us  worship  the  sun,  father  and  mother  of  light  and  love  and 
joy."  Then  wi  at  would  it  be  your  duty  to  do — kill  her?  Do  you  be- 
lieve any  real  god  ever  did  that  ?  Your  hand  should  be  first  upon  her, 
and  when  you  took  up  some  ragged  rock  and  hurled  it  against  the  white 
bosom  filled  with  love  for  you,  and  saw  running  away  the  red  current  of 
her  sweet  life,  then  you  would  look  up  to  heaven  and  receive  the  con- 
gratulations of  the  infinite  fiend  whose  commandments  you  had  to  obey. 
I  guess  the  Bible  was  not  inspired  about  religious  liberty.  Let  me  ask 
you  right  here:  Suppose,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  God  gave  those  laws  to  the 
Jews  and  told  them  "  whenever  a  man  preaches  a  different  religion,  kill 
him,"  and  suppose  that  afterwards  the  same  God  took  upon  himself 
flesh,  and  came  to  the  world  and  taught  and  preached  a  different  re- 
ligion, and  the  Jews  crucified  him — did  he  not  reap  exactly  what  he 
gowed  ? 

May  be  this  book  is  inspired  about  war.  God  told  the  'Israelites  to 
overrun  that  country,  and  kill  every  man,  woman  and  child  for  defending 
their  native  land.  Kill  the  old  men?  Yes.  Kill  the  women ?  Certainly. 
And  the  little  dimpled  babes  in  the  cradle,  that  smile  and  coo  in  the  face 
of  murder — dash  out  their  brains;  that  is  the  will  of  God.  Will  you  tell 
me  that  any  god  ever  commanded  such  infamy?  Kill  the  men  and  the 
women,  and  the  young  men  and  the  babes!  "What  shall  we  do  with 
the  maidens?"  "  Give  them  to  the  rabble  murderers!"  Do  you  believe 
that  God  ever  allowed  the  roses  of  love  and  the  violets  of  modesty  that 
Bhed  their  perfume  in  the  heart  of  a  maiden  to  be  trampled  beneath  the 
brutal  feet  of  lust?  If  there  is  any  God,  I  pray  him  to  write  in  the  book 
of  eternal  remembrance  opposite  to  my  name,  that  I  denied  that  lie. 
Whenever  a  woman  reads  a  Bible  and  comes  to  that  passage,  she  ought 
8 


114  MISTAKES  OF  INGERSOLL. 

to  throw  the  book  from  her  in  contempt  and  scorn.  Do  you  tell  me  that 
any  decent  god  would  do  that?  What  would  the  devil  have  done  under 
the  same  circumstances?  Just  think  of  it;  and  yet  that  is  the  God  that 
we  want  to  get  into  the  Constitution.  That  is  the  God  we  teach  our 
children  about,  BO  that  they  will  be  sweet  and  tender,  amiable  and  kind! 
That  monster — that  fiend!  I  guess  the  Bible  is  not  inspired  about  relig- 
ious liberty,  nor  about  war. 

Then,  if  it  is  not  inspired  about  these  things,  maybe  it  is  inspired 
about  slavery.  God  tells  the  Jews  to  buy  up  the  children  of  the  heathen 
roundabout  and  they  should  be  servants  for  them.  What  is  a  "ser- 
vant? "  If  they  struck  a  "  servant  "  and  he  died  immediately,  punish- 
ment was  to  follow;  but  if  the  injured  man  should  linger  a  while,  there 
was  no  punishment,  because  the  servant  represented  their  money!  Do 
you  believe  that  it  is  right — that  God  made  one  man  to  work  for  another 
and  to  receive  pay  in  rations?  Do  you  believe  God  said  that  a  whip  on 
the  naked  back  was  the  legal  tender  for  labor  performed?  Is  it  possible 
that  the  real  God  ever  gave  such  infamous,  blood-thirsty  laws?  \Miat 
more  does  he  say?  When  the  time  of  a  married  slave  expired,  he  could 
not  take  his  wife  and  children  with  him.  Then  if  the  slave  did  not  wish 
to  desert  his  family,  he  had  his  ears  pierced  with  an  awl,  and  became  his 
master's  property  forever.  Do  you  believe  that  God  ever  turned  the 
dimpled  checks  of  little  children  into  iron  chains  to  hold  a  man  in  slave- 
ry? Do  you  know  that  a  God  like  that  would  not  make  a  respectable 
devil?  I  want  none  of  his  mercy.  I  want  no  part  and  no  lot  in  the 
heaven  of  such  a  God.  I  will  go  to  'perdition,  where  there  is  human 
sympathy.  The  only  voice  we  have  ever  had  from  either  of  those  other 
worlds  came  from  hell.  There  was  a  rich  man  who  prayed  his  brothers 
to  attend  to  Lazarus  so  that  they  might  "  not  come  to  this  place."  That 
is  the  only  instance,  so  far  as  we  know,  of  souls  across  the  river  having 
any  sympathy.  And  I  would  rather'be  in  hell,  asking  for  water,  than  in 
heaven  denying  that  petition.  Well,  what  is  this  book  inspired  about? 
Where  does  the  inspiration  come  from  ?  Why  was  it  that  so  many  ani- 
mals were  killed?  It  was  simply  to  make  atonement  for  man — that  is  all. 
They  killed  something  I  hat  had  not  committed  a  crime,  in  order  that  the 
one  who  had  committed  the  crime  might  be  acquitted.  Based  upon  that 
idea  is  the  atonement  of  the  Christian  religion.  That  is  the  reason  I 
attack  this  book — because  it  is  the  basis  of  another  infamy,  viz:  that  one 
man  can  be  good  for  another,  or  that  one  man  can  sin  for  another.  I 
deny  it.  You  have  got  to  be  good  for  yourself ;  you  have  got  to  sin  for 
yourself.  The  trouble  about  the  atonement  ia,  that  it  saves  the  wrong 
man.  For  instance,  I  kill  some  one.  He  is  a  good  man.  lie  loves  his 
wife  and  children  and  tries  to  make  them  happy;  but  he  is  not  a  Chris- 


"MISTAKES  OF  MOSES."  115 

tian,  nnrl  he  goes  to  hell.  Just  as  soon  as  I  am  convicted  and  cannot  get 
a  pardon  I  get  religion,  and  I  go  to  heaven.  The  hand  of  mercy  cannot 
reach  down  through  the  shadows  of  hell  to  my  victim. 

There  is  no  atonement  for  the  saint — only  for  the  sinner  and  the  crim- 
inal. The  atonement  saves  the  wrong  man.  I  have  said  that  I  would 
never  make  a  lecture  at  all  without  attacking  this  doctrine.  I  did  not 
care  what  I  started  out  on.  1  was  always  going  to  attack  this  doctrine. 
Ami  in  my  conclusion  1  want  to  draw  you  a  few  pictures  of  the  Christian 
heaven.  But  before  I  do  that  I  want  to  say  the  rest  I  have  to  say  about 
Moses.  I  want  you  to  understand  that  the  Bible  was  never  printed  until 
1488.  I  want  you  to  know  that  up  to  that  time  it  was  in  manuscript,  in 
possession  of  those  who  could  change  it  if  they  wished;  and  they  did 
change  it,  because  no  two  ever  agreed.  Much  of  it  was  in  the  waste  bas- 
ket of  credulity,  in  the  open  mouth  of  tradition,  and  in  the  dull  ear  of 
memory.  I  want  you  also  to  know  that  the  Jews  themselves  never  agreed 
as  to  what  books  were  inspired,  and  that  there  were  a  lot  of  books  written 
that  were  not  incorporated  in  the  Old  Testament.  I  want  you  to  know 
that  two  or  three  years  before  Christ,  the  Hebrew  manuscript  was  trans- 
lated into  Greek,  and  that  the  original  from  which  the  translation  was 
made  has  never  been  seen  since.  Some  Latin  Bibles  were  found  in  Africa 
but  no  two  agreed;  and  then  they  translated  the  Septuagint  into  the  lan- 
guages of  Europe,  and  no  two  agreed.  Henry  VIII.  took  a  little  time 
between  murdering  his  wives  to  see  that  the  Word  of  God  was  translated 
;onvctly.  You  must  recollect  that  we  are  indebted  to  murderers  for  our 
Bibles  and  our  creeds.  Constantine,  who  helped  on  the  good  work  in  its 
early  stage,  murdered  his  wife  and  child,  mingling  their  blood  with  the 
blood  of  the  Savior. 

The  Bible  that  Henry  VIII.  got  up  did  not  suit,  and  then  his  daughter, 
the  murderess  of  Mary,  Queen  of  Scotts,  got  up  another  edition,  which  also 
did  not  suit;  and  finally,  that  philosophical  idiot,  King  James,  prepared 
the  edition  which  we  now  have.  There  are  at  least  one  hundred  thousand 
•rrors  in  the  Old  Testament,  but  everybody  sees  that  it  is  not  enough  to 
invalidate  its  claim  to  infallibility.  But  these  errors  are  gradually  being 
fixed,  and  hereafter  the  prophet  will  be  fed  by  Arabs  instead  of  "ravens," 
ind  Samson's  three  hundred  foxes  will  be  three  hundred  "sheaves" 
ilivady  bound,  which  were  fired  and  thrown  into  the  standing  wheat.  I 
want  you  all  to  know  that  there  was  no  contemporaneous  literature  at  the 
time  the  Bible  was  composed,  and  that  the  Jews  were  infinitely  ignorant 
in  their  day  and  generation — that  they  were  isolated  by  bigotry  and  wick- 
edness from  the  rest  of  the  world.  I  want  you  to  know  that  there  are 
tburU'L'rrhundred  millions  of  people  in  the  world;  and  that  with  all  the 
talk  and  work  of  the  societies,  only  one  hundred  and  twenty  millions  have 


116  MISTAKES  OF  INGERSOLL. 

got  Bibles.  I  want  you  to  understand  that  not  one  person  in  one  hundred 
in  this  world  ever  read  the  Bible,  and  no  two  ever  understood  it  alike  who 
•did  read  it,  and  that  no  one  person  probably  ever  understood  it  aright. 
I  want  you  to  understand  that  where  this  Bible  has  been,  man  has  hated 
fcis  brother — there  have  been  dungeons,  racks,  thumbscrews,  and  the 
«word.  I  want  you  to  know  that  the  cross  has  been  in  partnership  with 
the  sword,  and  that  the  religion  of  Jesus  Christ  was  established  by  mur- 
•derers,  tyrants  and  hypocrites.  I  want  you  to  know  that  the  church 
carried  the  black  flag.  Then  talk  about  the  civilizing  influence  of  this 
religion ! 

Now,  I  want  to  give  an  idea  or  two  in  regard  to  the  Christian's  heaven. 
Of  all  the  selfish  things  in  this  world,  it  is  one  man  wanting  to  gut  to 
heaven,  caring  nothing  what  becomes  of  the  rest  of  mankind.  "If  I 
can  only  get  my  little  soul  in!  "  1  have  always  noticed  that  the  people 
who  have  the  smallest  souls  make  the  most  fuss  about  getting  them  saved. 
Here  is  what  we  are  taught  by  the  church  to-day.  We  are  taught  by  it 
that  fathers  and  mothers,  brothers  and  sisters  can  all  be  happy  in  heaven, 
no  matter  who  may  be  in  hell;  that  the  husband  can  be  happy  there 
with  the  wife  that  would  have  died  for  him  at  any  moment  of  his  life  in 
hell.  But  they  say,  "  We  don't  believe  in  fire.  What  we  believe  in  now 
is  remorse."  What  will  you  have  remorse  for?  For  the  mean  things 
you  have  done  when  you  are  in  hell?  Will  you  have  any  remorse  for  the 
mean  things  you  have  done  when  you  are  in  heaven?  Or  will  you  be  so 
good  then  that  you  won't  care  how  you  used  to  be?  Do  n't  you  see  what 
an  infinitely  mean  belief  that  is?  I  tell  you  to-day  that,  no  matter  in 
what  heaven  you  may  be,  no  matter  in  what  star  you  are  spending 
the  summer,  if  you  meet  another  man  whom  you  have  wronged  you 
will  drop  a  little  behind  in  the  tune.  And,  no  matter  in  what  part 
of  hell  you  are,  and  you  meet  some  one  whom  you  have  succored,  whose 
nakedness  you  have  clothed,  and  whose  famine  you  have  fed,  the  fire  will 
cool  up  a  little.  According  to  this  Christian  doctrine,  when  you  are  in 
heaven  you  won't  care  how  mean  you  were  once.  What  must  be  the 
social  condition  of  a  gentleman  in  heaven  who  will  admit  that  he  never 
would  have  been  there  if  he  had  not  got  scared?  What  must  l>e  the 
social  position  of  an  angel  who  will  always  admit  that  if  another  had  not 
pitied  him  he  ought  to  have  been  damned?  Is  it  a  compliment  to  an  infi- 
nite God  to  say  that  every  being  He  ever  made  deserved  to  be  damned 
the  minute  He  got  him  done,  and  that  He  will  damn  everybody  He  has 
not  had  a  chance  to  make  over?  Is  it  possible  that  somebody  else  can  be 
good  for  me,  and  that  this  doctrine  of  the  atonement  is  the  only  anchor 
for  the  human  soul? 

For  instance:  here  is  a  man  seventy  years  of  age,  who  has  been  » 


"MISTAKES  OF  MOSES."  117 

splendid  fellow  and  lived  according  to  the  laws  of  nature.  He  has  got 
about  him  splendid  children,  whom  he  has  loved  and  cared  for  with  all 
his  heart.  But  he  did  not  happen  to  believe  in  this  Bible;  he  did  not 
believe  in  the  Pentateuch.  He  did  not  believe  that  because  some  child- 
ren made  fun  of  a  gentleman  who  was  short  of  hair,  God  sent  two  bears 
and  tore  the  little  darlings  to  pieces.  He  had  a  tender  heart,  and  he 
thought  about  the  mothers  who  would  take  the  pieces,  the  bloody  frag- 
ments of  the  children,  and  press  them  to  their  bosom  in  a  frenzy  of  grief; 
he  thought  about  their  wails  and  lamentations,  and  could  not  believe 
that  God  was  such  an  infinite  monster.  That  was  all  he  thought,  but  he 
went  to  Hell.  Then,  there  is  another  man  -who  made  a  hell  on  earth  for 
his  wife,  who  had  to  be  taken  to  the  insane  asylum,  and  his  children 
were  driven  from  home  and  were  wanderers  and  vagrants  in  the  world. 
But  just  between  the  last  sin  and  the  last  breath,  this  fellow  got  religion, 
and  he  never  did  another  thing  except  to  take  his  medicine.  He  never 
did  a  solitary  human  being  a  favor,  and  he  died  and  went  to  heaven. 
Do  n't  you  think  he  would  be  astonished  to  see  that  other  man  in  hell, 
and  say  to  himself,  "  Is  it  possible  that  such  a  splendid  character  should 
bear  such  fruit,  and  that  all  my  rascality  at  last  has  brought  me  next  to 
God?" 

Or,  let  us  put  another  ease.  You  were  once  alone  in  the  desert — no 
provisions,  no  water,  no  hope.  Just  when  your  life  was  at  its  lowest  ebb, 
a  man  appeared,  gave  you  water  and  food  and  brought  you  safely  out. 
How  you  would  bless  that  man.  Time  rolls  on.  You  die  and  go  to 
heaven ;  and  one  day  you  see  through  the  black  night  of  hell,  the  friend 
who  saved  your  life,  begging  for  a  drop  of  water  to  cool  his  parched  lips. 
He  cries  to  you,  "  Remember  what  I  did  in  the  desert — give  me  to  drink." 
How  mean,  how  contemptible  you  would  feel  to  see  his  suffering  and  be 
enable  to  relieve  him.  But  this  is  the  Christian  heaven.  We  sit  by  the 
fireside  and  see  the  flames  and  the  sparks  fly  np  the  chimney — everybody 
happy,  and  the  cold  wind  and  sleet  are  beating  on  the  window,  and  out 
on  the  doorstep  is  a  mother  with  a  child  on  her  breast  freezing.  How 
happy  it  makes  a  fireside,  that  beautiful  contrast.  And  we  say  "  God  is 
good,"  and  there  we  sit,  and  she  sits  and  moans,  not  one'night  but  for- 
ever. Or  we  are  sitting  at  the  table  with  our  wives  and  children,  every- 
body eating,  happy  and  delighted,  and  Famine  comes  and  pushes  out  its 
shriveled  palms,  and,  with  hungry  eyes,  implores  us  for  a  crust.  How 
that  would  increase  the  appetite!  And  yet  that  is  the  Christian  heaven. 
Don't  you  see  that  these  infamous  doctrines  petrify  the  human  heart? 
And  1  would  have  every  one  who  hears  me,  swear  that  he  will  never  con- 
tribute another  dollar  to  build  another  church,  in  which  is  taught  such 
infamous  lies.  1  want  every  one  of  you  to  say  that  you  never  will,  direct- 


118  MISTAKES  OF  INGERSOLL. 

ly  or  indirectly,  give  a  dollar  to  any  man  to  preach  that  falsehood.  It 
has  done  harm  enough.  It  has  covered  the  world  with  blood.  11  has 
filled  the  asylums  for  the  insane.  It  has  cast  a  shadow  in  the  heart,  in 
the  sunlight  of  every  good  and  tender  man  and  woman.  ]  say  let  us  rid 
the  heavens  of  this  monster,  and  write  upon  the  dome  "  Liberty,  love 
and  law." 

No  matter  what  may  come  to  me  or  what  may  come  to  you,  lot  us  do 
exactly  what  we  believe  to  be  right,  and  let  us  give  the  exact  thought  in 
our  brains,  leather  than  have  this  Christianity  true,  I  would  rather  all 
the  gods  would  destroy  themselves  this  morning.  I  would  rather  the 
whole  universe  would  go  to  nothing,  if  such  a  thing  were  possible,  this 
instant.  Rather  than  have  the  glittering  dome  of  pleasure  reared  on  the 
eternal  abyss  of  pain,  I  would  see  the  utter  and  eternal  destruction  of  this 
universe.  I  would  rather  see  the  shining  fabric  of  our  universe  crumble 
to  unmeaning  chaos,  and  take  itself  where  oblivion  broods  and  memory 
forgets.  I  would  rather  the  blind  Samson  of  some  imprisoned  force,  re- 
leased by  thoughtless  chance,  should  so  rack  and  strain  this  world  I  hat 
man  in  stress  and  straint,  in  astonishment  and  fear,  should  suddenly  fall 
back  to  savagery  and  barbarity.  1  would  rather  that  this  thrilled  and 
thrilling  globe,  shorn  of  all  life,  should  in  its  cycles  rub  the  wheel,  the 
parent  s.ar.  on  which  the  light  should  fall  as  fruitlessly  as  falls  the  gaze 
of  love  on  death,  than  to  have  this  infamous  doctrine  of  eternal  punish- 
ment true;  rather  than  have  this  infamous  selfishness  of  a  heaven  for  a 
few  and  a  hell  for  the  many  established  as  the  word  of  God! 

One  world  at  a  time  is  my  doctrine.  Let  us  make  some  one  happy 
here.  Happiness  is  the  interest  that  a  decent  action  draws,  and  the  more 
decent  actions  you  do,  the  larger  your  income  will  be.  Let  every  man 
try  to  make  his  wife  happy,  his  children  happy.  Let  every  man  try  to 
make  every  day  a  joy,  and  God  cannot  afford  to  damn  such  a  map.  I 
cannot  help  God;  1  cannot  injure  God.  I  can  help  people;  I  can  injure 
people.  Consequently  humanity  is  the  only  real  religion. 

I  cannot  better  close  this  lecture  than  by  quoting  four  lines  from 
Robert  Burns: 

"To  make  a  happy  fireside  clime 

To  wiMiiis  and  wile — 
That's  tin-  inn-  |»ulins  and  sublime 
Of  liuiiiau  life." 


MISTAKES 


OF 


INGERSOLL 


AS   SHOWN   BY 


REV.  W.  F.  CRAFTS,  BISHOP  CHARLES  E.  CHENEY,  CHAPLAIN  C.  C 

McCABE,  D.D.,  ARTHUR  SWAZEY,  D.D.,  ROBERT  COLLYER,  D.D., 

FRED.  PERRY  POWERS,  AND  OTHERS. 


INCLUDING  INGERSOLL'S   LECTURE 

ON 

SKULLS,  AND   HIS  ANSWER 

TO 

PROF.  SWING,  DR.  RYDER,  DR.  HERFORD,  DR.  COLLYER, 
DR.  THOMAS,  DR.  KOEHLER,  AND  OTHER  CRITICS. 


ALSO 
INGERSOLL'S  ORATION  AT  HIS  BROTHER'S  GRAVE, 

TOGETHER  WITH 

HENRY  WARD  BEECIIER'S  AND  HON.  ISAAC  N.  ARNOLD'S 

COMMENTS   ON    THE    SAME. 


EDITED    BY 

J.     IB. 


CHICAGO: 
RHODES  &   McCLURE,    PUBLISHERS. 

1880. 


Not  satisfied  with  his  recent  parade  of  the  "Mistakes  of 
Moses  "  before  the  Chicago  public  (which  called  forth  our 
first  book,  entitled  the  "  Mistakes  of  Ingersoll,  as  Shown  By 
Prof.  Swing  and  Others"),  Mr.  I.  has  since  returned  and 
delivered  another  lecture  against  the  Bible  and  against  his 
critics,  Prof.  Swing,  Dr.  Ryder,  Dr.  Ilcrford  and  Dr. 
Collyer.  These  last  efforts  of  Mr.  Ingersoll  have  called  forth 
the  present  volume,  in  which  will  be  found  additional 
"Mistakes,"  as  shown  by  Rev.  "W.  F.  Crafts,  who  is  the 
well-known  successor  of  Dr.  Tiffany  in  Trinity  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church;  by  Chaplain  C.  C.  McCabe,  Bishop 
Cheney,  Arthur  Swazey,  D.D.,  Robert  Collyer,  D.D.,  whose 
names  are  all  familar  to  the  public;  and  by  Fred  Perry 
Powers,  who  is  favorably  identified  with  Chicago  journalism. 
The  "  commendable  fairness,"  mentioned  by  the  press,  in 
printing  both  the  "text  and  replies  "  in  the  former  volume? 
requires  in  this  instance,  also  the  text,  which  is  given  at  the 
close  and  which  includes  Mr.  Ingersoll's  replies  to  Prof. 
Swing,  Dr.  Ryder,  Brooke  Ilerford  and  others. 

J.  B.  McCLURE. 
CHICAGO,  May  17,  1879. 

Entered  according;  to  Act  ft  Congreen,  In  the  ycnr  1879,  liy  J.  B.  McCuriiK  &  R.  S. 
Rue  DES,  in  the  Office  of  the  Librarian  of  Congresx,  at  Washington,  D.  r. 


OTTAWAV  &  COMPANY, 
Printer*. 


UONOHUK   it   llKNNtBEURIT, 

Binders. 


PAGE. 

W.  F.  CRAFTS'  REPLY          ......  7 

Ingersollism  Outlined — "Ten  Points"  instead  of  "  Five  " — Infi- 
del Protoplasm  '.  .  .  .  .  7 

First  Point  in  the  Ten — Sepulchral  Hoots  of  the  Ingersoll  Owl — 
A  Theological  Rip  Van  Winkle  ....          10 

Ingersoll  Mistakes  a  Part  for  the  Whole — Gross  Misrepresenta- 
tions ........         12 

The  Great  Ingersoll  Boomerang — How  it  Works — Further  Mis- 
representations Examined        .....  13 

Misrepresenting  Bible  Passages        .  .  .  14 

Sun  and  Moon  Standing  Still      .....  15 

Hell 16 

The  Present  vs.  the  Future  .....  17 

Ingcrsoll's  Horrible  Estimate  of  Truth  ...  19 

The  Bible  the  Best  of  Books,  and  Christ  the  Best  of  Men        .         20 
Something  New  if  True— Infidelity  the  Essential  Factor  in  Pro- 
grcssive  Civilization — But  Coleridge,  Win.  H.  Seward,  Bis- 
marck, and  other  Great  Statesman  can  not  see  it — Civilization 
goes  only  with  Christianity  ....  21 

.Marvelous  Power  of  Time  and  Circumstance — Tragic  Effect  of 
Iso-thcrmal  Lines — Peoria  Mud  Necessarily  the  Seventh 
Heaven  as  Ingersoll  Sees  it  .  .  .  .24 

Law  is  Ingersoll 's  God  .....  26 

Liberty  and  Infidelity— What  DC  Tocqueville  Says  About  it  26 

Woman— Ingcrsoll's  Theory  at  Variance  with  Facts        .        .          27 
Ingersoll's  Theory  of  Childhood— Some  of  His  Little  Stories — 
The  Whole  Subject  Carefully  Examined— Significant  Incident 
in  the  Life  of  Abraham  Lincoln  ....         28 

Ingersoll  Says  Christianity  Fetters  Thought— The  Bible  and  a 

Host  of  Distinguished  Men  Say  Otherwise        .           .  .82 
A  Cloud  of  Witnesses               .....  34 
Jesus  Christ           .....                                  87 
Amazing  Ignorance  of   Infidels  Concerning  the  Scriptures — 
Hume's  Ignorance  of  the  New  Testament— Tom  Paine  With- 
out a  Bible           8» 

8 


4  CONTENTS, 

Distributed  Ignorance  and  Concentrated  Hatred — Probable  Cause 

of  Ingersoll's  Infidelity  .  ....  89 

The  Trutk  of  the  Whole  Matter      .....        40 

CHAPLAIN  MCCABK'S  REPLY  .  .  .  .  .43 

The'Famous  Chaplain  lias  a  Remarkable  Dream — He  Sees  ihe 
Great  City  of  Ingersollville — Which  Ingersoll  and  the  Infidel 
Host  Enter — And  are  Shut  in  for  Six  Months — Remarkable 
Condition  of  Things  Outside  and  Inside— Happiness  and 
Misery — Ingersoll  Finally  Petitions  for  a  Church  and  sends 
for  a  Lot  of  Preachers  .  .  .  .  43 

DR.  SWAZEY'S  REPLY  .•          .  .  .  .          49 

Momentary  View  of  Col.  Ingersoll  Through  the  Doctor's  Glass — 
The  Bible  on  the  Meridian — What  the  Doctor  Sees  in  the 
Great  Book  .  .  .  .  .  .  .49 

Occultation    of   Ingersoll's  Good   Sense — General    Survey    of 

Deities— Scope  of  Divine  Revelation  .  .  51 

The  Great  Central  Figure— Absolute  Unity  of  the  Bible  System       53 
The  Bible  Law  of  Development  vs.  Infidel  Philosophy          .  54 

Common  Sense  View  of  the  Subject — How  it  Eliminates  Polyg- 
amy, Slavery,  Etc.  ......         56 

More  Common  Sense — The  Great  Ingersoll  Orb  Approaching 
the  Nihilistic  Belt— Nebulae  .  '  •  .  ,  .  .58 

DR.  COLLYER'S  REPLY         .  .  .  .  .  .  63 

Dr.  Collyer  Relates  a  Little  Story — A  Book  that  Cost  Mr.  Inger- 
soll the  Governorship  of  Illinois — The  Volume  Philosophically 
Considered — Heavy  Blows  .  .  .  .  .63 

Sparks  Flying  in  all  Directions — Singular  Mental  Phenomenon 
Occasioned  by  $23,000  a  Year  .  .  .  .64 

The  Clear  Ring  of  Truth  vc.  the  Dull  Thud  of  the  Baser  Metal- 
Potency  of  Simple  Statement — The  Doctor's  Objections  to 
Ingersoll's  Talk  .  .  .  .  .  .  67 

Putting  the  Fine  Edge  on  Orthodoxy— Taking  a  Weld  with  Prof. 
Swing  and  Dr.  Thomas — Borax  and  Bigotry  .  •.  69 

A  Touching  Illustration — Eloquence  and  Truth— Ilavelock's 
Saints  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  73 

Atheism — Not  an  Institution  but  a  "  Destitution !  " — The  True 
Life  '.•'.-' 74 

FKI-.H.  PERRY  POWERS'  REPLY  ....  75 

The  Sinaitic  Code— Solvent  Powers  of  the  Historic  Method — 
Graphic  Illustration  of  the  Two  Schools  ...  75 


CONTENTS.  5 

Divine  Adjustment  of  the  Moral  Law — Progressive  Elimination 

of  Polygamy,  Slavery,  Etc. — Mount  Sinai  and  Mount  Calvary  78 

Purpose  and  Potency  of  the  Mosaic  Law  ...  80 
Excessive  Wickedness  and  Proportionate  Punishment — The 

Court  of  Heaven  vs.  the  Couit  of  Earth  .  .82 

Able  Bodied  Mendacity  and  Civilization — Love  and  Obedience  84 

Mr.  Powers'  Pungent  Peroration            ....  85 

BISHOP  CHENEY'S  REPLY        .  .  .  .  .  .89 

How  the  Question  of  Forgery  Applies  to  the  Five  Books  of 

Moses      ........  89 

The  "  Common  Ground  "  of  the  Contending  Parties — Logical 

Po^i'ionof  Ezra      .......  91 

The  Bishop  PI  anting  Signals  on  the  Mountain  Tops  of  History — 

Survey  of  t'.ie  New  Moses  Air  Line   ....  92 

Termination  of  ihc  Great  Air  Line  .  .  .  .95 

Genealogical  Reflections,             .....  96 

Cutting  the  Gordian  Knot      .  .  .  .  .  .97 

The  Bishop's  Challenge  —  Moses  and  Ingersoll  as  Chronologists  99 
Mud  Calendars  vs.  Facts  —  Some  Sad  and  Sorrowful  Scientific 

Figuring  in  the  Sand  .  .  ;  .  .  .  '  101 

A  Mistake  of  Ingersol),  Tom  Paine  &  Co.  Corrected — Conclusion  103 

INGERSOLL'S  LECTURE  ox  SKULLS  and  his  Replies  to  Prof.  Swing, 

Dr.  Ryder,  Dr.  Herford,  Dr.  Collyer,  and  Other  Critics,   .            .  107 

INOERFOLL  AT  His  BROTHER'S  GRAVE           •           •           •  146 

Colonel  Ingersoll's  Fuueral  Oration    ....  147 

HENKY  WARD  BEECHER'S  Comments  on  Mr.  Ingersoll's  Faith, 

and  Funeral  Discourse        ......  148 

HON.    ISAAC    N.   ARNOLD'S  Comments  on    Ingersoll's  Funeral 

Oration        ........  160 


MISTAKES  OF  INGERSOLL 


AS  SHOWN  BY 


W.  F.  CRAFTS, 
CHAPLAIN  McCABE, 
ARTHUR  SWAZEY,  D.  D. 


ROBERT  COLLYER,  D.  D. 
F.  P.  POWERS, 
BISHOP  CHENEY, 


AND  OTHERS. 
ALSO  INCLUDING 


INGERSOLL'S  LECTURE  IN  FULL  ON  "SKULLS,"  AND  HIS  RE- 
PLIES TO  PUOF.  SWING,  W.  II.  RYDER,  BROOKE 
HERFORD,  AND  OTHER  CRITICS. 


W.   F.  CRAFTS'  HEPLY. 


Ingersollism  Outlined— "  Ten  Points  "   instead    of  "  Five  "—Infidel 

Protoplasm. 

"I  WAR  with  principles,  not  with  men" — the  motto  of 
Webster  in  political  debates — should  be  the  law  in  all  con- 
flicts of  ideas,  especially  in  the  realm  of  religion.  It  ia 
not  of  the  person,  Mr.  Ingersoll,  that  I  speak,  but  rather 
of  the  principles  of  which  he  is  the  most  popular  spokes- 
man, and  which  make  up  that  shallowest,  but  loudest 
Jericho  book  of  infidelity's  bitter  waters  which  begins  in 
a  few  tears  of  pretended  martyrdom  to  love  of  truth ;  spat- 
ters the  mud  of  epithets  upon  Christians,  while  condemn- 
ing that  very  vice  in  a  part  of  the  Church  in  less  advanced 

7 


8  MISTAKES  OF  INOERSOLL. 

ages;  babbles  shallowly  along  its  little  channel  about  law 
as  an  almighty  executive,  as  if  the  rails  that  give  direction 
to  a  train  took  the  place  of  the  engine  that  draws  it;  winds 
very  crookedly  through  the  Old  Testament,  avoiding  every 
passage  except  those  few  that  can  be  used  for  ridicule; 
plows  still  more  crookedly  through  church  history,  shun- 
ning every  part  except  the  unchristian  swamps  of  bigotry 
and  superstition;  keeps  up  the  same  snaky  crookedness  in 
its  passage  through  religion  of  to-day,  hurrying  noisily 
among  only  the  few  rocky  and  marshy  places,  where  it  can 
find  the  reptiles  of  superstition  and  error;  passes  with  great 
dash  of  spray  along  the  audacious  theory  that  Christian 
civilization  is  the  result  of  anti-Christian  forces;  plunges 
with  loud  roar  of  waters  down  its  claim  that  infidelity  is 
the  only  liberator  of  man,  woman,  and  child;  and  still  flow- 
ing within  its  narrow  little  channel  babbles  of  itself  as  an 
emancipated  ocean  of  untrammeled  thought. 

These  characteristics  of  the  brook  are  the  ten  points  of 
Ingersollisra.  I  have  read  and  re-read,  carefully,  the  nine 
published  lectures  of  Mr.  Ingersoll  on  religious  themea, 
besides  hearing  the  one  entitled  "  Skulls,"  and  every  one  of 
them  has  something  on  each  of  these  ten  points  of  his  fixed 
and  unchanging  creed,  and  not  one  or  all  has  anything 
beyond  these  ten  "  doctrines" — for  he  often  uses  the  words, 
"  That  is  my  doctrine."  "While  attacking  creeds  of  the 
Church  he  holds  and  urges  all  to  believe  his  own  unformu- 
lated  but  distinct  creed,  offering  in  place  of  the  "  five  points 
of  Calvinism  "  the  ten  points  of  Ingersollism,  the  latter 
occurring  as  regularly  in  every  one  of  his  lectures  in  this 
age  as  the  former  did  a  century  ago  in  the  sermons  of  Cal- 
vinists,  which  he  ridicules  for  their  sameness. 
/  What  is  this  frightful  monster  that  we  call  "a  creed?" 
/  Simply  a  statement  of  what  one  believes.  Every  man, 
t  unless  he  is  an  idiot,  lias  a  creed  in  which  ho  agrees 


W.  F.  CRAFTS1  REPLY.  9 

•with  somebody.  The  only  question  is  to  find  by  "  reason, 
observation,  and  experience,"  which  is  the  best.  It 
would  hardly  be  considered  bigotry  for  a  scientist  to 
believe  a  few  things  as  a  creed  of  fixed  scientific  truths 
which  no  progress  can  ever  erase,  for  instance,  the  rotund- 
ity and  revolution  of  the  earth,  the  attraction  of  the 
planets  upon  each  other,  and  scores  of  other  things  which 
every  scientist  has  held  for  many  years  unchanged,  and  is 
6ure  are  unchangeable  because  proved  conclusively.  There 
are  some  certainties  in  the  science  of  religion,  such  as  are 
referred  to  in  the  Apostles'  Creed,  which  may,  without  any 
greater  bigotry,  be  considered  as  proved  and  established. 
The  Christian  Church  of  to-day  does  not  generally  insist 
upon  anything  further  than  these  few  concrete  facts  of  the 
Apostles'  Creed  "  as  essentials  "  in  Christian  belief.  When 
Evangelical  churches  shout  their  watchword,  "  In  essentials, 
unity;  in  non-essentials,  liberty;  in  all  things,  charity,"  it  is 
as  if  a  company  of  scientists  should  say,  "On  proved  facts 
we  will  all  agree,  but  in  the  realms  of  hypothesis  and 
opinion,  we  will  agree  to  disagree." 

But  the  special  point  we  wish  to  notice  is,  that  Mr. 
Ingersoll  attacks  creed  with  creed.  lie  is  as  bigoted  a  par- 
tisan of  his  own  creed  as  ever  called  hard  names.  The  very 
lieart  of  his  creed  seems  to  be  the  belief  that  his  mission  is 
to  destroy  the  creed  of  everybody  else. 

It  is  a  suggestive  fact  that  the  naturally-gifted  mind  of 
Mr.  Ingersoll,  who  declares  that  godless  and  soulless  mate- 
rialism is  the  emancipator  and  inspirer  of  thought,  should 
be  able,  in  all  the  years  which  these  ten  lectures  represent, 
to  produce  but  ten  ideas,  the  same  ten  ideas  which  made 
ii])  his  earliest  lecture,  years  ago,  appearing  successively  in 
each  of  the  succeeding  lectures,  including  that  of  to-day, 
there  being  no  change  save  in  the  cap  and  bells  of  his 
jokes.  Heading  these  ten  ideas  over  and  over  for  as  many 


10  MISTAKES  OF  INGERSOLL. 

hours  in  going   through   these   lectures,   brought   back   a 
ludicrous  scene  in  our  college  burial  of  mathematics  when 
fifteen  notes  of  Ploy  el's  hymn  were  played   dolefully  over 
and  over  again  for  nearly  an  hour,  as  marching  music. 
In  reading  these  lectures,  which  arc  but  ten  combinations 

C3  * 

and  permutations  of  ten  ideas,  one  is  reminded  also  of  tho 
lecturer's  own  illustration  of  the  boarding  house  keeper, 
who,  for  years,  had  no  change  of  diet  from  hash,  for  every 
lecture  is  the  same  hash  of  ten  ideas,  changed  only  in 
.  the  name  and  in  the  order  of  putting  in  the  ten  elements. 

ARTICLE  I. 

First  Point  in  the  Ten — Sepulchral  Hoots  of  the  Ingersoll  Owl — 
A  Theological  Rip  Van  Winkle. 

As  in  the  beet  hash  of  New  England  the  blood  red  beet 
predominates  and  gives  color  to  the  whole,  so  the  principal 
element  in  these  lectures  against  Christianity  is  the  blood 
-Of  past  persecutions  by  a  corrupt  part  of  tho  Church,  for 
/which  true  Christianity  has  no  more  responsibility  than  a 
/  loyal  colonel  in  our  war  of  1770,  or  1SG1,  for  the  robberies 
!  and  crimes  of  camp-followers  or  traitors.    In  every  published 
lecture  on  religion,  Mr.  Ingersoll  deliberately  cites  tho  acts 
of  tho  Benedict  Arnolds  of  the  Christian  army  as  repre- 
senting the  Washingtons  and  Grants.     He  describes  past 
counterfeits  of  religion  as  specimens  of  its  accepted  cur- 
,  Tency.     It  is  as  if  one  should  attack  present  astronomers  by 
relating  ridiculous  stories  of  the  old  astrologers,  or  assail 
present  physicians  by  quoting  the  strange  practices  of  tho 
ancient  alchemists. 

In  one  lecture — a  fair  representative  of  all  in  this  respect 
— I  found  that  in  forty-three  pages  only  two  did  not  con- 
tain these  stale  references  to  past  persecutions,  except  a  few 
pages  given  to  the  trial  of  Professor  Swing,  which  were 
equally  stale  as  assailing  chiefly  abandoned  features  of 


W.  F.  CRAFTS'  REPLY.  11 

human  Calvinism.  Past  errors  and  follies  of  the  human 
Calvinism,  human  Catholicism,  and  heathen  religions  are 
constantly  spoken  of  as  if  vital  elements  of  Christianity. 

Mr.  Ingersoll  ought  to  have  a  hymn  to  sing  at  the  open- 
ing and  close  of  his  lectures,  made  on  the  pattern  of  that 
one  whose  first  verse  is: 

Go  on,  go  on,  go  on,  go  on, 

Go  on,  go  0:1,  go  on, 
Go  on,  go  on,  go  on,  go  on, 

Go  on,  go  on,  go  on, 

with  forty-two  verses  more  of  the  same,  substituting  "  past 
persecutions,"  instead  of  "go  on,"  which  is  too  progressive 
for  a  "go-back"  lecture. 

Mr.  Ingcrsoll  is  a  Rip  Van  Winkle  in  theology,  who 
seems  to  have  slept  ever  since  the  days  of  persecution. 
He  is  a  Sancho  Panza  who  assails  imaginary  foes  of  his  own 
making,  and  thinks  he  has  captured  the  golden  helmet  of 
Christianity  when  he  has  only  secured  the  abandoned  brass 
kettle  of  old  traditions  and  discarded  superstitions.  He  is 
a  Falstaff  killing  the  dead  Percy  of  past  follies.  His  lectures 
bustle  with  the  antiquated  and  misused  words  "priests," 
"  dark  ages,"  "  witches,"  "  fagots,"  "  religious  wars,"  "  church 
fathers,"  "damned  infants,"  "martyrs,"  "gods,"  etc.,  as 
if  he  were  speaking  in  a  heathen  land,  and  also  in  some 
dead  century.  And  he  uses  the  past  tense  so  exclusively 
in  his  "  progressive "  lectures  that  one  would  suppose 
English  as  well  as  Hebrew  had  no  present  tense.  It 
must  have  been  Mr.  Ingersoll,  in  his  boyhood,  that  came 
from  his  first  hunt  crying,  "I've  shot  a  cherub," 
having  mistaken  an  owl  for  a  cherub,  because  of  the 
wretched  pictures  of  the  latter  on  the  old  grave  stones. 
Mr.  Ingersoll  logically  destroys  some  Church  owl  of  the 
dark  ages,  and  beranse  it  corresponds  with  his  own  carica- 
ture of  the  Church  thinks  ho  has  dethroned  Christianity 


12  MISTAKES  OF  INOERSOLL, 

itself.  Like  Poe's  "  raven  "  who  had  but  one  word,  "  Never- 
more," Mr.  Ingersoll  is  continually  crying  in  the  ears  of 
the  present  that  worn-out  strain  about  abuses  which  we  all 
condemn,  *'  Galileo-Servetus,  Galileo-Servctus." 

This  ten-idea  champion  of  popular  materialism,  while 
talking  of  progress  and  condemning  those  who  hold  fast  to 
things  of  the  pa;-t,  is  nevertheless  so  largely  devoted  to 
showing  his  carefully  preserved  martyr-mummies  from  the 
long-past  ages  of  persecution,  that  we  find  Mark  Twain's 
question  constantly  arising  at  each  new  charge  against 
Christianity:  "Is  he — is  lie  dead?"  and  we  are  also 
tempted  to  cry  out  for  a  "  fresh  corpse "  in  place  of 
these  very  dry  and  dead  mummies  of  past  abuses.  To 
paraphrase  the  lecturer's  own  words,  we  want  one  pres- 
ent fact.  We  pass  our  hats  through  the  lectures  in  vain 
for  some  present  facts  against  pure  Christianity,  which  he 
assumes  to  assail  and  overthrow.  There  is  far  more  excuse 
for  Thomas  Paine,  in  an  age  when  the  old  Calvinistic  errors 
were  largely  held,  and  for  Voltaire,  surrounded  by  the 
superstitions  of  Romanism,  misunderstanding  Christianity, 
than  for  this  modern  lecturer,  who  very  well  knows  that 
the  caricatures  which  he  represents  as  Christianity  are 
very  old  pictures  of  its  ancient  camp-followers. 

ARTICLE  II. 

Ingersoll  Mistakes  a  Part  for  the  Whole — Gross  Misrepresen- 
tations. 

Article  Second  of  Ingersollism,  like  unto  the  first,  but 
•with  present  instead  of  past  tense,  is  about  as  follows: 
Christianity  to-day  is  proved  to  be  false  by  the  present 
errors  and  abuses  that  arc  found  in  some  of  the  churches. 

Romish  superstitions  and  the  errors  of  those  who  have 
grossly  misinterpreted  the  Bible  ao  a  support  of  slavery, 
polygamy,  etc.,  are  continually  used  by  this  champion  of 


W.  P.  CRAFTS'  REPLY.  IS 

"  liberty  of  thought,"  and  "  charity  "  and  "  brotherhood," 
as  representing  true  Christianity  to-day,  whicli  is  quite  as 
honorable  as  if  a  man  should  attack  the  principles  of  med- 
icine by  citing  the  tricks  of  quacks.  An  examination  of 
the  hull  of  the  Great  Eastern  found  adhering  to  the  iron- 
plates  of  the  bottom  an  enormous  multitude  of  mussels, 
whose  weight  is  estimated  at  three  hundred  tons.  The 
great  ship  has  been  carrying  on  her  hull  a  burden  equal  to 
full  cargoes  for  six  or  eight  sailing  ships. 

Suppose  I  should  show  you  a  few  of  those  barnacles  as 
specimens  of  what  the  Great  Eastern  is  made  of,  and  then 
denounce  its  builders  as  fools?  Mr.  Ingersoll  is  constantly 
confounding  barnacles  of  some  "  church  "  with  Christian- 
ity. Suppose  I  should  take  the  belts  and  whips  of  torture  J 
that  are  used  by  Romanists  in  Mexico  and  show  them  in 
lectures  as  specimens  of  the  barbarism  of  Congregational- 
ists  and  Methodists?  It  is  certainly  most  palpable  unfair- 
ness for  Mr.  Ineersoll  to  use  the  word  "gods''  indiscrimi- 

o  o 

nately  of  heathen  and  Christian  objects  of  worship,  and  to 
employ  the  words,  "  The  Church,"  as  if  there  were  no  false 
or  true,  past  or  present  in  connection  with  it,  and  as  if  its 
meaning  were  as  much  a  unit  as  "  The  Moon."  So  also  he 
unfairly  classes  all  ministers  as  "priests."  It  would  be 
quite  as  fair  to  speak  of  all  "medicine  men,"  past  and 
present,  savage  and  civilized,  under  the  words,  "  The 
Doctors." 

ARTICLE  III. 

The  Great  Ingersoll  Boomerang — How  it  Works — Further  Mis- 
representations  Carefully  Examined. 

Far  less  prominent,  but  ever  present,  is  the  third  element 
in  Ingersollism — an  oft-recurring  moan — "  Infidels  to-day 
are  martyrs  at  whom  men  cast  epithets,  but  not  ballots." 

The  defeated  infidel  politician  appears  as  regulaiiy  and 


14  MISTAKES  OF  INGERSOLL. 

revengefully  in  every  lecture  (indirectly,  of  course)  as  the 
misanthropic  Byron  shows  himself  in  each  of  his  poems  as 
the  real  hero  under  the  various  names  of  "  Childe  Harold  " 
"  Don  Juan,"  "  Corsair,"  etc.  lie  who  cries  out  against 
the  past  for  calling  infidels  by  hard  names  hurls  in  the 
more  kindly  present  more  anathemas  than  any  other  Pope. 

"  You  are  an  infidel." 

u  Tou're  a  bigot !  Arn't  you  ashamed  to  be  calling 
names,  you  old  hypocrite?" 

In  this  debate  of  Mr.  Ingersoll's  bigotry  with  the  big- 
otry of  the  past,  a  printer  might  fitly  misprint  the  "pros 
and  cons,"  "  pigs  and  cows."  It  is  like  the  English  lady 
who  criticised  an  American  friend  for  saying,  at  a  mistake 
in  croquet,  "What  a  horrid  scratch,"  and  when  asked 
what  would  have  been  better,  replied,  "You  might  have 
said,  'What  a  beastly  fluke."3  It  is  not  strange  that  the 
people  will  not  elect  to  represent  them  in  politics,  one  who 
so  audaciously  misrepresents  them,  as  docs  Air.  Ingersoll 
in  nearly  every  attempt  to  declare  the  belief  of  Christians. 

Misrepresenting  Bible  Passages. 

,  Dr.  Ryder,  Prof.  Swing,  and  Dr.  Ilerford,  have  abund- 
antly shown  his  numerous  and  inexcusable  misrepresenta- 
tions of  Bible  passages,  to  which  may  be  added  another 
more  atrocious,  if  possible,  the  implication  that  the  perse- 
cutions of  Saul  of  Tarsus,  and  the  adulteries  of  Solomon, 
are  a  part  of  the  Christian  system,  and  also  that  Jephthali 
really  killed  his  daughter  as  a  sacrifice,  which  the  Bible 
does  not  declare,  nor  any  Christian  believe,  and  the  mis- 
interpretation of  the  passage  about  women  keeping  silence 
in  the  churches,  which  the  Christian  Church  of  to-day  con- 
siders of  only  temporary  force,  a  command  to  Corinth,  and 
not  to  Christendom,  no  more  binding  upon  us  tlum  Paul's 
request  that  Timothy  should  bring  his  cloak  that  was  left 


W.  F.  CRAFTS'  REPLY.  15 

at  Troas.  It  is  a  kindred  misrepresentation  to  say  the 
assertion  that  those  who  tortured  the  martyrs  were  the 
same  ones  who  made  the  Bible — an  assertion  which  his- 
tory clearly  refutes,  as  the  Old  Testament  was  ar- 
ranged in  its  present  form  388  B.  C.,  and  the  New 
Testament  was  collected  as  it  is  at  present  before  the  days 
of  persecution  by  the  church  began. 

It  is  also  a  misrepresentation,  not  only  of  the  Bible,  out 
of  the  common  principles  of  interpretation  in  every 
department  of  literature,  to  intimate  that  an  explanation 
of  passages  as  poetic  and  figurative,  is  unfair  and  begging 
the  question.  Suppose  we  should  put  a  literal  interpreta- 
tion upon  the  tropical  figures  of  Mr.  Ingersoll's  eloquence, 
and  when  ho  speaks  of  the  sun's  rays  "  as  arrows  from  the 
q-.-.ivcr  of  the  sun,"  declare  him  an  ignorant  idolater,  who 
thinks  the  sun  an  intelligent  being  who  has  caught  the 
passion  for  archery. 

Sun  and  Moon  Standing  Still. 

It  is  equally  absurd  for  him  to  interpret  the  poem  about 
the  sun  and  moon  standing  still  by  the  rules  of  prose.  Mr. 
Ingersoll  also  says,  poetically:  "Think  of  that  wonderful 
chemistry  by  which  bread  was  changed  into  the  divine 
tragedy  of  Ilamlet."  Suppose  we  should  interpret  that 
sentence  as  fact  rather  than  figure,  and  say  that  Mr.  Ingpr- 
6oll  believes  that  by  tho  combination  of  certain  liquids  and 
solids  in  the  chemist's  retort  this  marvelous  literary  pro- 
duction was  created!  It  would  be  quite  as  reasonable  as 
to  insist  upon  absolute  literalness  in  the  bold  figures  of 
Oriental  eloquence  and  poetry. 

Mr.  Ingersoll  also  misrepresents  the  Christian's  Sunday 
in  the  home,  speaking  of  it  as  "a  day  too  good  for  a  child 
to  be  happy  in,"  saying:  "  The  idea,  that  any  God  would 
hate  to  hear  a  child  laugh."  "We  all  know  (?)  that  in  the 


1«  MISTAKES  OF  INOERSOLL. 

Christian  homes  of  to-day  the  smiles  and  laughter  of 
childhood  are  strictly  forbidden,  and  any  one  who  smiles  in 
church  is  carried  out  by  the  police  (?). 

Hell. 

Especially  does  Mr.  Ingersoll  continually  and  grossly 
{misrepresent  Christianity  in  regard  to  the  conditions  by 
which  men  are  believed  to  bring  themselves  to  Hell.  Hear 
him:  "  It  is  infinitely  absurd  to  suppose  that  a  God  would 
address  a  communication  to  intelligent  beings,  and  yet 
make  it  a  crime,  to  be  punished  in  eternal  flames,  for  them 
to  use  their  intelligence  for  the  purpose  of  understanding 

/'  His  communication.  Neither  can  they  show  why  any  one 
should  be  punished,  either  in  this  world  or  another,  for 
acting  honestly  in  accordance  with  reason;  and  yet  a  doc- 
trine with  every  possible  argument  against  it  has  been, 
and  still  is,  believed  and  defended  by  the  entire  orthodox 
world.  If  I  should  say  ninety-nine  in  a  hundred  go  down 

\  to  Hell,  I  should  have  the  support  of  the  entire  orthodox 
world.  You  can  see  for  yourselves  the  justice  of  damn- 
ing a  man  if  his  parents  happened  to  baptize  him  in  the 
wrong  way.  Think  of  a  God  who  will  damn  his  children 
for  the  expression  of  an  honest  thought!" 
\  Few,  if  any,  intelligent  Christians  teach  that  a  man  must 
accept  their  denominational  creed  in  all  its  details  in  order 
to  be  saved,  as  the  careless  critics  of  Christianity  so  often 
assert,  but  rather  all  evangelical  Christians  repeat  the  New 
Testament  conditions  of  salvation,  "  Believe  on  the  Lord 
Jesus  Christ  and  thou  shalt  be  saved,"  and  declare  nega- 
tively, not  as  has  been  said  by  Mr.  Ingersoll,  said  by 
infidels,  that  all  who  do  not  believe  will  not  bo  saved,  but 
rather  in  the  words  of  Martin  Luther,  "  No  man  shall  die 
in  his  sins,  except  him  who,  through  disbelief,  thrusts  from 
him  the  forgiveness  of  sin,  which  in  the  name  of  Jesus  is 


W.  F.  CRAFTS'  REPLY.  17 

offered  him."  It  is  the  firm  of  Ignorance  and  Bigotry  that 
declare  that  evangelical  Christianity  teaches  that  a  man  can 
not  be  saved  who  does  not  believe  in  its  statement  of  the 
Trinity  and  its  interpretations  of  the  Bible. 

He  also  utterly  misrepresents  the  Christian  conception 
•of  saving  faith  as  ignoring  reason  and  action,  both  of  which 
it  includes,  and  as  resting  chiefly  on  a  book  or  a  creed  as 
its  end,  rather  than  on  the  person,  Christ.     Every  church 
teaches  that  intelligent  faith  and  faithfulness  toward  Christ x 
{not  creeds  in  detail)  is  the  condition  of  salvation.  "  Faith,"    \ 
says   Bishop   "Wightman,   "believes  on  competent    testi- 
mony what   it  could  not   otherwise   know."     Or,  as  Dr.    / 
Arnold  says:     "  Faith  is  reason  leaning  on  God."     Reason/ 
is  the  foundation  of  belief. 

The  Present  vs.  the  Future. 

Another  of  the  almost  countless  misrepresentations  of 
religion  by  Mr.  Ingersoll,  is  the  frequent  statement  that 
Christianity  is  wholly  devoted  to  the  future,  and  ignores  man's 
present  needs,  which  reminds  us  that  it  was  Thomas  Paine 
(?)  and  not  the  Bible  that  said,  "Pure  religion  and  unde- 
filed  before  God  the  Father,  is  this,  to  visit  the  fatherless 
and  the  widows  in  their  affliction,  and  to  keep  himself 
unspotted  from  the  world."  And  you  have  all  observed 
that  the  organized  societies  and  benevolences,  by  which 
orphans,  and  the  aged,  and  the  helpless,  are  aided  in  asy- 
lums and  refuges,  were  not  (?)  established  by  this  Chris- 
tianity which  "  ignores  man's  present  needs,  and  devotes 
itself  exclusively  to  the  future."  Christian  ministers  never 
preach  on  combining  works  with  faith,  or  showing  charac- 
ter by  conduct,  or  loving  their  neighbors  as  themselves. 
Mr.  Ingersoll  declares  that  a  little  restitution  is  better  than 
a  great  deal  of  repentance,  and  we  have  noticed  that  when 
Ingersoll  has  delivered  a  lecture  or  two  in  our  large  cities, 
2 


18  MISTAKES  OF  INGERSOLL. 

those  among  his  hearers  who  have  defrauded  others  have, 
at  once,  begun  the  work  of  restitution  (?)  by  sending  back 
the  money  they  had  stolen  from  employers,  creditors  and 
customers.  (?)  Mr.  Moody,  who  preaches  repentance  as 
well  as  restitution,  of  course  (?)  has  no  such  results  follow- 
ing his  work,  as  he  proclaims  the  Christianity  whose  entire 
interest  is  in  the  future  life.  (?)  You  smile  at  this  practical 
test  of  Mr.  Ingersoll's  theory,  in  view  of  the  fact  that  wo 
have  no  record  of  a  single  instance  where  one  of  his  lectures 
has  led  to  the  restitution  of  stolen  property;  while  such 
cases  are  constantly  occurring  in  connection  with  the  work 
of  Mr.  Moody  and  other  Christians.  Several  very  notable 
ones  have  come  under  my  own  immediate  notice. 

It  is  an  equally  astounding,  barefaced  misrepresentation, 
or  to  put  it  in  fewer  letters,  false,  when  lie  states  that  all  of 
the  orthodox  religion  of  the  day  is  Calvinistic.  Part  of 
the  so-called  Calvinistic  churches  are  not  Calvinistic  in  the 
usual  sense  of  the  word,  and  we  had  fondly  dreamed  that 
there  was  such  a  body  of  Christians  as  Methodists  who  are 
distinctly  anti-Calvinistic,  and  hold  the  first  place  in  num- 
bers among  Protestant  Churches  in  America. 

It  is  also  a  misrepresentation  to  say,  "  Whoever  thinks 
he  has  found  it  all  out,  he  is  orthodox,"  for  every  orthodox 
pulpit  constantly  preaches  the  duty  of  growth,  intellectual 
and  spiritual.  Mr.  Ingcrsoll  declares  that  Protestants  to- 
day would  persecute,  as  in  the  past,  if  they  had  the  power, 
a  statement  in  which  he  assumes  the  role  of  the  prophet, 
and  shows  the  profundity  of  his  insight  into  the  spirit  of 
Christianity  to-day,  which  binds  up  the  broken-hearted 
and  ministers  to  the  troubled  arid  sorrowing.  It  is  cunning 
sophistry  to  say  that  every  one  is  opposed  to  the  union  of 
Church  and  state,  because  they  know  that  the  Church 
could  not  be  trusted  with  power,  a  statement  which  obtains 
its  force  by  suppressing  the  very  important  f»ot,  that  the 


W.  F.  CRAFTS'  REPLY.  19 

Church  when  united  with  political  power  draws  into  itself 
unprincipled  politicians,  and  becomes  entirely  a  different 
body  through  the  opportunities  it  offers  to  selfishness  and 
ambition.  It  is  also  a  misrepresentation  to  say  that  "  Prot- 
estants stand  up  for  Protestant  persecutors  of  the  past," 
for  all  Protestant  churches  of  to-day  condemn  the  burning 
of  Servetus  and  such  acts  as  much  as  any  one.  It  is  also  \ 
a  misrepresentation  by  holding  back  half  tho  truth  to  tell  \ 
us  of  that  base  or  mistaken  element  of  the  Church  that 
made  the  rack  and  not  of  that  other  noble  element  of  the 
Church  that  was  upon  the  rack,  for  the  martyrs  were  sel- 
dom if  ever  infidels. 

Ingersoll's  Horrible  Estimate  of  Truth. 

Mr.  Ingersoll,  in  his  recent  lecture  on  "  Skulls,"  twice 
said  that  truth  was  not  worth  a  little  suffering,  that  one 
had  better  lie  or  recant  than  suffer  a  little  pain,  or  lose  a 
drop  of  blood.  He  would  "  turn  Judas  Iscariot  to  his  own 
soul  "  to  save  a  thumb.  This  significant  item  as  to  his 
whole  estimate  cf  truth  helps  us  to  account  for  the  whole- 
sale manufacture  of  falsehoods  in  his  lectures. 

Mr.  Ingersoll's  most  gross  misrepresentation  is  the 
habitual  custom  of  telling  only  one  side  of  a  fact,  quoting 
difficult  Bible  passages  but  never  sublime  ones,  bad  cus- 
toms of  the  Church  but  never  good  ones,  defects  in  Chris- 
tians but  never  excellences.  When  Mr.  Ingersoll  speaks 
of  "  a  lawyer  whipping  his  child  for  holding  back  part  of 
the  truth,"  he  describes  his  own  partisan  and  one-sided 
method,  as  Professor  Swing  has  shown,  attacking  Christian- 
ity as  the  hired  attorney  of  infidelity,  or  the  hired  cam- 
paigner of  the  anti-Christian  party  who  is  to  present  only 
one  side.  This,  too,  from  a  man  who  claims  that  infidelity 
unfetters  thought  and  broadens  mind. 


20  MISTAKES  OF  1NGERSOLL. 

The  Bible  the  Best  of  Books,  and  Christ  the  Best  of  Men. 

Mr.  Ingersoll  also  misrepresents  the  differences  among 
the  various  forms  of  Christianity.  All  men  of  broad 
scholarship  of  the  last  and  best  century  who  have  written 
in  religion,  both  skeptics  and  Christians,  agree  on  two 
things — the  Bible  as  the  best  of  books,  and  Christ  as  the 
best  of  men.  So  much  at  least  may  be  said  to  be  indorsed 
by  all  scholarship,  and  when  a  man  rests  down  upon  these 
two  truths  as  proved  and  established,  and  follows  them  out 
into  the  truths  to  which  they  lead,  he  will  not  be  likely  to 
go  far  astray,  for  if  Christ  is  confessedly  the  greatest  and 
best  of  men,  the  "Teacher  sent  from  God,"  then  His 
teachings  are  to  be  accepted,  and  those  teachings  are  the 
foundations  of  all  essential  Christianity;  and  if  the  Bible 
is  the  best  of  books,  the  moral  and  spiritual  guide  of  man, 
then  its  teachings  are  to  be  carefully  read  and  deeply 
regarded,  and  all  who  take  this  book  as  life's  guide  book 
will  be  led  into  all  truths  of  Christianity  that  are  funda- 
mental and  important. 

All  Christians,  Romanists  and  Protestants,  agree  that 
Christ  is  the  living  embodiment  and  pattern  of  Christian 
manhood,  and  that  the  Bible,  at  least,  contains  the  "  Word 
of  God."  All  evangelical  Christians  agree  on  that  broad 
and  simple  platform  of  the  Apostles  Creed,  and  declare 
not  "many,"  but  one  way  to  Heaven,  and  that  not  by 
"  believing  an  incomprehensible  creed,"  but  by  faith  and 
faithfulness  of  intellect,  will,  heart  and  life,  toward  tho 
person,  Jesus  Christ.  Two  quotations  fairly  represent  all 

(the  evangelical  churches  on  this  matter.  Bishop  Whipple, 
an  Episcopalian,  recently  remarked,  "  As  the  grave  grows 
nearer,  my  theology  is  growing  strangely  simple,  and  it 
begins  and  ends  with  Christ,  as  the  only  refuge  for  the 
lost,"  Dr.  Alexander,  of  Princeton,  a  Presbyterian,  when 


W.  P.  CRAFTS1  REPLY.  21 

dyiag  said;  UA11  my  theology  is  reduced  to  this  narrow 
compass,  '  Jesus  Christ  came  into  the  world  to  save  sin- 
nera.' "  Mr.  Ingersoll,  misrepresents  the  most  familiar 
facts  when  he  says,  "  Just  in  proportion  as  the  human  race 
has  advanced,  the  church  has  lost  power.  There  is  no 
exception  to  this  rule."  It  is  a  fact  so  familiar  that  every 
intelligent  child  knows  it,  that  Christianity  was  never  so 
powerful  in  the  world,  as  to-day — never  had  so  many  fol- 
lowers. By  the  multiplied  agencies  of  church  work,  six 
thousand  are  converted  per  day — two  Pentecosts  every 
twenty-four  hours. 

Mr.  Ingersoll  misrepresents  not  only  the  Bible  and 
church  history,  by  leaving  out  all  that  would  not  help  his 
theories,  and  stating  one  half  the  truth,  but  he  also  mis- 
represents the  Declaration  of  Independence  as  "retiring 
God  from  politics,"  as  if  the  words  were  not  there,  "the 
station  to  which  the  laws  of  nature,  and  nature's  God  entitle 
them,"  "  All  men  are  endowed  by  their  Creator  with  cer- 
tain inalienable  rights  " — "  and  for  the  support  of  this 
declaration,  and  in  a  firm  reliance  upon  Divine  Providence, 
we  mutually  pledge  to  each  other  our  lives,  our  fortunes, 
and  our  sacred  honor."  It  is  surely  infinitely  absurd  to 
expect  a  man  broadly  and  truly  to  represent  us  in  politics, 
who  so  inexcusably  and  grossly  misrepresents  us  in  religion. 

ARTICLE  IV. 

Something   New  if  True — Infidelity  the  Essential  Factor  in  Pro- 
gressive   Civilization — But    Coleridge,    Wm.    H.    Seward, 
Bismarck,  and  other  great  Statesmen  can  not  see  it — 
Civilization  goes   only  with  Christianity. 

The  fourth  article  in  Ingersollism  is  as  follows:  "  The 
civilization  of  this  country  is  not  the  child  of  faith,  but  of 
unbelief — the  result  of  free  thought.  But  for  the  efforts 
of  a  few  brave  infidels,  the  church  would  have  taken  the 


22  MISTAKES  OF  INOERSOLL. 

world  back  to  the  midnight  of  barbarism."  How  ignorant 
we  have  all  been!  Luther,  who  led  Europe  out  of  the 
Dark  Ages,  was  not,  it  seems,  a  child  of  faith,  but  of  free 
thought  (?)  and  Paul  also,  who  brought  civilization  into 
barbarous  Europe,  peopled  with  savage  tribes,  as 
described  by  Julius  Caesar  in  his  Commentaries.  The 
transformation  of  savage  Gaul  and  Britain  into  civilized 
France  and  England  was  accomplished  by  the  efforts  of 
«  unbelief."  (?) 

Long  ago,  Christianity  had  a  contest  with  Atheism.  Pan- 
theism, and  Culture,  as  to  which  was  the  best  civilizer. 
Christianity  selected  Europe,  and  gave  the  other  three  con- 
testants Asia,  with  several  centuries  the  start.  Atheism, 
or  Buddhism,  which  ignores  all  spiritual  things  and  devotes 
itself  to  the  present  life,  has  operated  for  thousands  of 
years  in  India.  Pantheism,  or  Brahminism,  made  its 
experiment  in  the  same  country;  and  Culture  obtained 
exclusive  control  of  China,  ruling  both  church  and  state, 
As  a  result,  in  accordance  with  Mr.  Ingersoll's  theory,  these 
elements  of  Ingersollism  have  developed  a  lofty  civiliza- 
tion (?)  in  China  and  India,  given  education  to  woman, 
torn  away  the  veil  of  her  slavish  seclusion,  made  her  the 
equal  of  man,  treated  female  infants  as  honorably  as  the 
boys,  developed  a  high  morality  in  the  community, 
and  supplied  the  world  with  its  standard  literature,  its 
foremost  science,  and  its  chief  inveiitions.(?)  On  the  other 
hand,  Christianity  came  into  barbarous  Europe  a  dozen 
centuries  later,  caused  the  degradation  and  enslavement  of 
women  and  children,  (?)  repressed  scientific  investigation,  (?) 
prevented  invention,  (?)  checked  thought,  (?)  and  thus  hin- 
dered literary  activity,  and,  by  the  barbarism  of  the  Bible, 
"  brought  bondage  to  man,  woman,  and  child  "  in  body  and 
brain.(?)  If  the  facts  do  not  correspond  to  these  legitimate 
deductions  from  Mr.  Ingersoll's  theories  as  to  the  effect  of 


W.  F.  CRAFTS'  REPLY.  23 

atheistic  culture,  on  the  one  hand,  and  Christianity,  on  the 
other,  upon  national  life,  so  much  the  worse  for  the  facts. 

Mr.  Ingersoll  says  much  against  the  wars  of  Christian 
nations.  He  forgets  that  peace  societies  and  arbitration 
were  never  known  outside  of  Christianity,  and  that  wars  in 
Christian  lands  are  the  gradually  disappearing  remains  of 
previous  barbarism.  He  talks  of  science  and  invention  as 
opening  up  this  era!  How  does  it  happen  that  all  this  is 
in  Christian  rather  than  in  heathen  lands?  He  talks  of 
charity  and  benevolence  of  infidels!  "Why  is  it  that  all 
benevolent  societies  are  Christian,  and  that  Thomas  Paine 
halls  can  not  be  supported?  He  talks  of  liberty  of  speech 
and  thought  and  government!  "Why  is  it  that  such  liberty 
is  only  found  in  Christian  countries?  He  has  much  to  say 
of  the  barbarous  age  of  dug-outs,  tom-toms,  and  wooden 
plows!  Has  he  not  seen  in  the  World's  Expositions  these 
very  things  as  representing  nations  to-day,  that  have  not 
risen  from  their  primitive  degradation  and  ignorance 
because  Christianity  has  not  yet  reached  them? 

As  to  the  relation  of  the  Bible  to  civilization,  Samuel 
Taylor  Coleridge  declares  that  "  for  more  than  a  thousand 
jears  the  Bible,  collectively  taken,  has  gone  hand  in  hand 
•with  civilization,  science,  law,  in  short,  with  moral  and 
intellectual  cultivation,  always  supporting,  and  often  lead- 
ing the  way." 

William  H.  Seward  says,  "The  whole  hope  of  human 
progress  is  suspended  on  the  ever-growing  influence  of  the 
Bible." 

Bismarck  utters  a  similar  sentiment,  as  quoted  in  his 
recent  biography:  "  How,  without  faith  in  a  revealed 
religion,  in  a  God  who  wills  what  is  good,  in  a  Supreme 
Judge,  and  a  future  life,  men  can  live  together  harmoniously 
— each  doing  his  duty  and  letting  every  one  else  to  do  his — 
I  do  not  understand."  Similar  sentiments  are  uttered  by 


24  MISTAKES  OF  INGERSOLL. 

the  leading  statesmen  of  all  lands,  the  unanimous  verdict 
of  statesmanship  being  that  civilization  can  not  be  carried 
forward  without  Christianity. 

ARTICLE    V. 

Marvelous   Power    of  Time   and   Circumstance — Tragic  Effect  ot 

Iso-thermal  Lines — Peoria  Mud  Necessarily  the  Seventh 

Heaven  as  Ingersoll  Sees  it. 

The  fifth  article  of  Ingersoll  ism  is,  that  gods  and  men 
are  but  evolutions  of  matter  and  circumstance,  the  differ- 
ence between  heathen  gods  and  the  Christian's  God  being- 
the  result  of  a  difference  in  their  worshippers,  and  the  dif- 
ference in  men  being  the  result  of  varying  soils  and  sur- 
roundings. He  says  :  "  No  god  was  ever  in  advance  of  the 
nation  that  created  him."  In  answer  to  this  last  statement, 
which  is  true,  of  course,  of  all  imaginary  deities,  but  not  of 
the  One  True  God,  it  is  only  necessary  to  ask  any  candid 
and  intelligent  man  to  read  the  description  of  God  given 
in  the  Bible,  where  both  Testaments  declare  Him  to  be 
"  merciful  and  gracious,  long  suffering  and  abundant  in 
goodness  and  truth,  but  will  by  no  means  spare  the  guilty," 
and  then  say  whether  this  God  is  nothing  more  than  the  reflec- 
tion of  the  stiff-necked  and  perverse  people  who  held  to  this- 
conception  of  Deity.  The  fact  is,  God  as  described  in  the 
Bible  is  infinitely  loftier  and  purer  than  the  Jewish  people,. 
or  any  people  of  any  age.  It  is  still  more  absurd,  if  pos- 
sible, for  Mr.  Ingersoll  to  assert  that  "  men  are  but  the- 
creatures  of  their  surroundings,  made  what  they  arc  wholly 
by  material  causes,  such  as  soil  and  climate."  It  is  OTIC  of 
the  characteristic  contradictions  of  history,  such  as  are  found 
BO  frequently  in  Mr.  Ingersoll's  lectures,  when  he  asserts 
that  great  minds  have  never  been  found  except  in  the  "  lands 
of  respectable  winters,"  with  the  intimation  that  no  great 
achievements  in  art  or  literature  are  possible  iu  warm 


W.  F.  CRAFTS'  REPLY.  25 

Oriental  lands.  As  if  Babylon,  and  Nineveh,  and  Egypt 
had  not  been  in  early  ages  the  universities  of  the  world. 
Carlyle  must  have  been  very  ranch  deceived  when  he  declared 
Job  of  the  Oriental  land  of  Uz  to  bo  the  greatest  poet  the 
world  has  known.  Mohammed  of  those  warm  lands  was 
certainly  great,  even  though  wrong,  and  scores  of  others, 
equally  eminent,  might  be  mentioned,  although,  of  course,, 
it  is  evident  that  greatness  of  men  or  peoples  in  tropical 
lands  is  rather  in  spite  of  circumstances  than  by  their  help. 
Mr.  Ingersoll  in  his  lecture  on  "Man,  Woman,  and 
Child,"  speaking  of  one  of  these  warm  countries  as  the  rep- 
resentative of  all,  says:  "You  might  go  there  with  five 
thousand  Congregational  preachers,  five  thousand  deacons,, 
five  thousand  professors  in  colleges,  five  thousand  of  the- 
solid  men  of  Boston  and  their  wives,  settle  them  all,  and 
you  will  see  the  second  generation  riding  upon  a  mule  bare- 
back, no  shoes,  a  grapevine  whip,  with  a  rooster  under  each 
arm  going  to  a  cock  fight  on  Sunday.  Such  is  the  influence 
of  climate."  But  like  most  of  Mr.  Ingersoll's  theories,  this 
one  is  unfortunately  the  direct  opposite  of  facts.  The 
Sandwich  Islands  have  all  these  disadvantages  of  climate, 
and  fifty  years  ago  were  plunged  in  the  deepest  barbarism,, 
with  all  the  vices  of  savage  life;  but  to-day,  as  all  well- 
informed  persons  know,  they  are  as  truly  civilized  as  any 
land,  with  industries,  education,  protection  of  life  and 
property,  equal  to  what  is  found  in  our  own  favored  coun- 
try. And  this  is  all  due,  as  King  Kalikua  said  in  New 
York,  to  the  Christianizing  of  his  people.  Indeed,  Mr. 
Ingersoll  contradicts  his  own  theory  as  to  the  dependence 
of  the  individual  upon  surroundings  in  his  lectures  on 
Ilumboldt  and  Paine,  both  of  whom  he  represents  as 
becoming  great  in  spite  of  surroundings  that  would  natu- 
rally have  led  in  the  opposite  direction,  thus  involuntarily 
recognizing  something  in  man  deeper  than  mere  physical 
evolution. 


26  MISTAKES  OF  INGERSOLL. 

The  whole  absurd  theory  of  individuals  and  nations  being 
wholly  dependent  upon  soil,  and  climate,  and  surroundings 
for  their  character,  is  fairly  represented  in  the  following 
incident: 

"  Pa,"  said  a  little  six-year  old,  "  what  makes  me  grow  ?" 

"  "Why,  the  bread  and  potato  I  feed  you  with." 

"  Does  potatoes  make  our  pig  grow,  too  ?" 

"  Yes." 

"  Then,  what  makes  him  be  a  pig  and  me  be  a  boy?" 

That  boy's  simple  question  explodes  all  the  theories  of 
evolution. 

ARTICLE  VI. 
Law  is  Ingersoll's  God. 

The  sixth  article  of  Ingersollism  is,  <k  I  believe  in  law,  the 
Almighty  maker  of  Heaven  and  earth."  One  might  as 
well  say  that  the  United  States  Constitution  made  our 
•country,  or  try  to  rule  the  land  by  laws  without  enforcers. 

That  the  universe  is  governed  according  to  a  system  of 
]aw  is  recognized  by  Christians  as  much  as  by  any  one,  and 
the  laws  of  the  Bible  are  not  new  arbitrary  enactments,  but 
recognitions  and  proclamations  of  that  part  of  the  law-sys- 
tem of  the  universe  that  relates  to  religion  and  morality. 
Laws  of  spirit  are  as  eternal  as  laws  of  matter.  Natural 
science  proclaims  the  latter,  religious  science  the  former. 

ARTICLE  VII. 

Liberty  and  Infidelity — What  De  Tocqueville  Says  About  it. 

The  seventh  article  is  made  up  of  the  following  statements: 
41  All  religions  are  inconsistent  with  mental  freedom.  The 
doubter,  the  investigator,  the  infidel,  have  been  the  saviours 
of  liberty." 

Mr.  Ingersoll,  when  talking  of  liberty  contradicts  what 
he  himself  has  said  of  law,  and  fails  to  remind  his  hearers 


W.  f_  (?£  AFT  S1  REPLY.  87 

and  readers  that  the  circle  of  law  bounds  on  every  side  the 
privileges  or*  liberty,  that  one  has  liberty  only  within  the 
range  of  propriety,  and  that  all  beyond  that  is  license.  lie 
ulso  forgets  the  very  evident  fact  that  the  prevailing  ideas  of 
personal  liberty  in  the  world  are  duo  to  the  general  dissem- 
ination, by  Christianity,  of  the  truth  that  a  man  is  a  soul  as 
well  as  a  body.  Wherever  men  are  regarded  as  mere  phys- 
ical beings,  with  no  life  deeper  than  the  bodily  life,  the 
stronger  will  enslave  the  weaker — woman,  child  and  captive. 
When  the  idea  that  each  man  is  an  immortal  soul  takes 
hold  upon  man,  with  it  there  comes  the  idea  of  individual 
rights.  If  Ingersollism  should  ever  persuade  a  civilized 
people  that  man  has  no  soul,  this  form  of  bondage  of  the 
weaker  to  the  stronger  will  be  resumed.  Not  soil,  but  soul, 
is  the  secret  of  liberty. 

Even  Mr.  Frothingham  recently  declared  that  the  Bible  is 
a  democratic  book,  and  that  we  get  out  of  it  our  ideas  of 
•equality.  lie  remembered  what  Mr.  Ingersoll  seems  to  for- 
get, that  all  through  the  Bible,  the  idea  of  personal  and  relig- 
ious liberty  is  found,  especially  in  those  words  of  the  Apostles 
to  the  rulers  who  attempted  to  tyrannize  over  their  con- 
sciences, u  We  ought  to  obey  God  rather  than  man,"  which 
lias  fitly  been  termed  the  concisest  of  all  statements  of  the 
principles  of  personal  liberty.  We  may  show  this  relation  of 
religion  to  liberty  in  the  words  of  the  greatest  modern 
writer  upon  such  questions,  De  Tocqueville,  who  says, 
•"  Bible  Christianity  is  the  companion  of  liberty  in  all  its 
•conflicts,  the  cradle  of  its  infancy,  and  the  divine  source  of 
its  claims." 

ARTICLE  VIII. 
Woman — Ingersoll's  Theory  at  Variance  with  Facts. 

The  eighth  article  of  Ingersollism,  is  in  regard  to  woman, 
and  is  as  follows:  "As  long  as  woman  regards  the  Bible 
as  the  charter  of  her  rights,  she  will  be  the  slave  of  man. 


28  MISTAKES  OF  INGERSOLL. 

The  Bible  was  not  written  by  a  woman.  Within  ils  lids 
there  is  nothing  but  humiliation  and  shaine  for  her." 

You  have  all  doubtless  observed  that  in  heathen  coun- 
tries, where  the  Bible  has  not  jet  come  with  its  enslaving 
(?)  influence  woman  has  (?)  liberty  and  honor,  and  educa- 
tion, and  opportunities  of  public  activity  and  benevolence 
(?),  but  in  Christian  lands  she  is  veiled,  degraded,  shut  out 
of  sight  and  restrained  from  education  (?).  I  have  always 
observed,  as  a  pastor,  that  it  is  the  religious,  and  church- 
going  husbands  that  tyrannize  over  their  wives  as  "bosses," 
and  deny  them  their  liberties  of  conscience,  and  other 
rights.  (?) 

Tou  smile  at  the  absurd  statement,  knowing  that  the 
"  heathen  at  home,"  who  as  husbands  are  harsh  and  brutal 
to  the  wives  they  have  promised  to  cherish,  arc  frequently 
ardent  believers  in  Ingersollism,  and  seldom  in  any  way 
connected  with  even  nominal  Christianity,  while  every 
school  boy  is  familiar  with  the  fact  that  woman,  in  all 
except  Christian  lands,  is  hardly  better  than  a  slave,  nota- 
bly so,  in  that  land  where  Ingersollism  under  the  name  of 
Buddhism  has  the  controlling  influence.  Mr.  Ingersoll 
utters  many  true  sentiments  about  the  family,  but  all  of 
these  he  learned  of  Christianity,  not  from  China,  or  Egypt. 

ARTICLE    IX. 

Ingersoll's  Theory  of  Childhood — Some  oi  His  LiUle  Stories — The 

Whole'  Subject   Carefully  Examined — Significant  Incident 

in  the  Life  cf  Abraham  Lincoln. 

The  ninth  article  of  Ingersollism  is  a  theory  of  child- 
nood  which  attacks  the  principles  of  sound  government  and 
health  even  more  than  religion:  "  Do  not  have  it  in  your 
mind  that  you  must  govern  them;  that  they  (children)  must 
obey.  Let  your  children  eat  what  they  desire.  They  know 
what  they  wish  to  eat.  Let  them  begin  at  which  end  of 
the  dinner  they  please." 


TF.  F.  CltAFTS'  REPLY.  S9 

Such  a  theory  is  worthy  of  nothing  more  than  the  smile 
with  which  you  hear  it.  It  is  all  answered  in  the  following 
representative  fact  of  childhood:  A  little  bit  of  a  girl 
wanted  more  and  more  buttered  toast,  till  she  was  told  that 
too  much  would  make  her  sick.  Looking  wistfully  at  the 
<lish  for  a  moment,  she  thought  she  saw  a  way  out  of  her 
difficulty,  and  exclaimed,  "  Well,  give  me  annuzer  piece, 
and  send  for  the  doctor!"  . 

Mr.  Ingersoll,  in  connection  with  his  theory  of  child*, 
hood,  often  refers  to  the  fact,  that  he  leaves  his  pocket- 
book  around  where  his  children  can  help  themselves  to 
whatever  they  wish,  and  urges  the  same  course  upon  all 
parents.  It  is  said  that  one  of  the  lecturer's  admirers,  being 
convinced  that  this  was  the  correct  theory,  determined  to 
give  up  punishing  his  child,  and  try  the  new  plan.  Accord- 
ingly, he  said  to  his  boy,  "  John,  I  am  convinced  I  have 
been  taking  the  wrong  course  to  try  to  make  you  a  better 
boy.  I  am  going  to  trust  you  more,  and  give  up  whip- 
pings. I  am  going  away  for  a  few  days,  and  I  have  left 
my  pocket-book  in  the  top  drawer  of  the  bureau.  Help 
yourself  to  money  whenever  you  need  it."  After  a  few 
days  the  father  returned  to  his  home,  late  at  night.  As  he 
opened  the  door  he  stumbled  over  a  large  canoe  in  the 
entry,  and  was  then  attacked  by  a  large  bull-dog  that  his 
boy  had  bought.  Entering  the  boy's  room,  he  found  it 
hung  round  with  guns,  and  fishing  poles,  and  daggers,  with 
another  canoe,  and  several  small  dogs — his  pocket-book  lying 
empty  on  the  top  of  the  bureau.  lie  is  now  less  enthusi- 
astic in  regard  to  Ingersoll's  knowledge  of  domestic  gov. 
crnment. 

The  leading  point  which  Mr.  Ingersoll  endeavors  to 
make  in  connection  with  his  lecture  on  Thomas  Paine  is 
that  the  Bible  shocks  a  child,  and,  therefore,  can't  be  true. 
You  have  all  observed  how  much  children  are  shocked  as 


80  MISTAKES  OF  INGERSOLL. 

they  gather  about  the  mother's  knees  in  the  twilight,  and 
hear  her  tell  the  stories  of  Jesus,  and  Joseph,  arid  Moses, 
and  Samuel,  and  Daniel  (?).  As  to  the  relation  of  th& 
Bible  to  childhood  and  home  life,  let  me  quote  the  opinion 
of  several  eminent  men,  mostly  skeptics,  for  whom  even 
Mr.  Ingersoll  cherishes  the  highest  regard: 

Thomas  Jefferson,  speaking  of  the  Bible  and  home  life,, 
says:  "  I  have  always  said,  and  always  will  say,  that  the 
studious  perusal  of  the  sacred  volume  will  make  better 
citizens,  better  fathers,  and  better  husbands." 

John  Quincy  Adams  says:  "  So  great  is  my  veneration 
for  the  Bible,  that  the  earlier  my  children  begin  to  read  it, 
the  more  confident  will  be  my  hopes  that  they  will  prove 
useful  citizens  to  their  country  and  respectable  members  of 
society." 

Theodore  Parker  says:  "  There  is  not  a  boy  on  the  hill* 
of  New  England,  not  a  girl  born  in  the  filthiest  cellar  which 
disgraces  a  capital  in  Europe,  and  cries  to  God  against 
the  barbarism  of  modern  civilization;  not  a  boy  nor  a  girl 
all  Christendom  through,  but  their  lot  is  made  better  by 
that  great  book." 

Diderot,  the  French  philosopher  and  skeptic,  was  wont 
to  make  this  confession :  "  No  better  lessons  than  those 
of  the  Bible  can  I  teach  my  child." 

Huxley,  in  an  address  upon  education,  says:  "I  have 
always  been  strongly  in  favor  of  secular  education,  in  tho 
sense  of  education  without  theology;  but  I  must  confess  I 
have  been  no  less  seriously  perplexed  to  know  by  what 
practical  measures  the  religious  feeling,  which  is  the  essen- 
tial basis  of  conduct,  was  to  be  kept  up,  in  the  present 
utterly  chaotic  state  of  opinion  on  these  matters,  without 
the  use  of  the  Bible.  The  pagan  moralists  lack  life  and 
color,  and  even  tho  noble  stoic,  Marcus  Aurelius,  is  too  high 
and  refined  for  an  ordinary  child.  Take  the  Bible  as  » 


W.  F.  CRAFTS1  REPLY.  81 

whole,  make  the  severest  deductions  which  fair  criticism  \ 
can  dictate,  and  there  still  remains  in  this  old  literature  a 
vast  residuum  of  moral  beauty  and  grandeur.  By  the  study 
of  what  other  book  could  children  be  so  humanized?  If 
Bible  reading  is  not  accompanied  by  constraint  and  solem- 
nity, I  do  not  believe  there  is  anything  in  which  children 
take  more  pleasure." 

What  would  "  shock  the  mind  of  a  child  "  would  be  to  hear 
Mr.  Ingersoll  excuse  them  for  telling  a  lie,  in  order  to 
escape  a  whipping.  What  would  shock  a  child  would  be 
to  hear  Mr.  Ingersoll  uttering  profanity 

What  would  shock  the  mind  of  a  child  would  be  to 
hear  Mr.  Ingersoll  telling  to  a  crowded  audience  with  a 
smile  of  approval  the  story  of  a  boy's  oath. 


Speaking  of  swearing  reminds  me  of  that  incident  of 
Abraham  Lincoln,  whom  Mr.  Ingersoll  calls  "  the  grandest 
man  ever  President  of  the  United  States,"  who  said  to  a 
person  sent  to  him  by  one  of  the  Senators,  and  who, 
in  conversation,  uttered  an  oath,  "  I  thought  the  Sen- 
ator had  sent  me  a  gentleman;  I  see  I  was  mistaken. 
There  is  the  door,  and  I  bid  you  good-day."  1  hold  in  my 
hand  the  last  report  of  the  New  York  Society  for  the  Pre- 
vention of  Cruelty  to  Children.  Of  course,  the  bruised  and 
beaten  little  ones,  here  described,  were  the  victims  of 
cruelty  in  Christian  homes  (?).  Their  fathers  and  mothers 
had  taken  too  much  religion  (?)',  had  become  brutalized  by 
reading  the  Bible  ( ?),  and  hence  abused  the  children  by 
their  own  fireside  until  the  law  was  compelled  to  interfere 
for  their  .Vf^po  r?Y 


S3  MISTAKES  OF  INGERSOLL. 

In  my  work  as  a  member  of  the  Citizen's  League  for  the 
auppression  of  the  sale  of  liquors  to  minors,  I  have  noticed 
that  this  supreme  cruelty  to  children — selling  them  in  their 
immature  years  the  liquors  that  make  them  self-destroyers, 
violators  of  the  public  peace,  and  candidates  for  drunkards* 
graves — is  perpetrated  by  Christian  men,  not  by  the  infidels 
who  applaud  so  lustily  at  Mr.  Ingersoll's  lectures  (?).  Hero 
I  am  reminded  of  the  published  report,  which  seems  well 
authenticated,  that  Mr.  Ingersoll  in  his  childhood  lived  in 
one  of  those  exceptional  homes  where  nominal  Christianity 
was  combined  with  harshness,  cruelty  and  bigotry.  If  so, 
this  would  be  some  slight  excuse  for  his  present  conduct, 
were  it  not  for  the  fact  that  inaturer  years  have  given  him 
.abundant  opportunity  to  see  the  bright  and  sunny  side  of 
Christian  gentleness  in  other  homes.  And  there  arc  no 
true  homes  that  do  not  owe  their  existence  to  the  influence 
of  Christianity  upon  the  family  relation. 

Having  myself  made  childhood  a  special  study  for  several 
years,  I  find  that  the  degree  of  recognition  given  to  the 
opinions  and  importance  of  childhood  in  various  ages  and 
countries,  is  exactly  in  proportion  to  the  degree  of  Chris- 
tianity there,  children  being  scarcely  noticed  in  heathen 
lands,  either  in  poetry,  or  history,  or  ethics,  while  the  Bible 
religion  has  always  given  childhood  an  exceedingly  prom- 
inent place.  All  the  attention  given  to  the  education  and 
development  of  the  little  ones  is  but  the  starlight  that 
shines  down  upon  us  from  the  manger  of  the  God-child. 

ARTICLE  X. 

Ingersoll    Says    Christianity    Fcttors   Thought — The   Bible   and  a 
Host  of  Distinguished  Men  Say  Otherwise. 

The  tenth  article  of  Ingersoilism  is  the  frequent  asser- 
tion that  Christianity  fetters  thought,  while  infidelity 
emancipates  it,  in  such  passages  as  these:  "  In  all  ages, 


W.  P.  CRAFTS'  REPLY.  33 

reason  has  been  regarded  as  the  enemy  of  religion."  "The 
gods  dreaded  education  and  knowledge  then  (in  the  time  of 
the  Garden  of  Eden)  just  as  they  do  now."  "For  ages 
a  deadly  conflict  has  been  waged  by  a  few  brave  men  of 
thought  and  genius,  on  the  one  side,  and  the  great, 
ignorant,  religious  mass,  on  the  other.  The  few  have 
said:  'Think.'  The  many  have  said:  'Believe." 

In  order  to  ascertain  what  freedom  and  power  of  thought 
materialism  had  given  to  the  mind  of  Mr.  Ingersoll,  I 
made  special  examination  of  the  logic  in  the  lecture  on 
"  The  Gods,"  and  found  there,  in  a  very  short  time,  one  or 
more  specimens  of  all  the  fallacies  laid  down  in  the  text- 
books of  logic.  "  "Waiter,"  said  John  Randolph,  at  a  cer- 
tain hotel,  "  if  this  is  coff  e,  bring  me  tea;  if  this  is  tea, 
bring  me  coffee  "  And  so  we  say,  if  this  is  the  "  power  of 
thought,"  give  us  weakness. 

Instead  of  the  Bible  forbidding  us  to  think,  as  Inger- 
sollism  so  often  declares,  it  is  full  of  ringing  appeals  to 
"reason,"  "think,"  ''consider,"  "ponder,"  "prove  all 
things." 

Prov.  26 : 16 :  "  The  sluggard  is  wiser  in  his  own  conceit  than  seven 
men  that  can  render  areason." 

Eccl.  7 : 25 :  "I  applied  mine  heart  to  know,  and  to  search,  and  to 
seek  out  wisdom,  and  the  reason  of  things,  and  to  know  the  wickedness 
of  folly,  even  of  foolishness  and  madness." 

Isa.  1:18:  "Come  now  and  let  us  reason  together,  saith  the  Lord; 
though  your  sins  be  as  scarlet,  they  shall  he  as  white  as  snow ;  though  they 
be  red  like  crimson,  they  shall  be  as  wool." 

Matt.  22 : 42 :    "  What  think  ye  of  Christ  ?" 

Acts  17 : 2:  "  Paul,  as  his  manner  was,  went  in  unto  them,  and  three 
Sabbath  days  reasoned  with  them  out  of  the  Scriptures." 

Acts  18:  4:  "  He  reasoned  in  the  synagogue  every  Sabbath,  and  per- 
suaded the  Jews  and  the  Greeks." 

Acts  13 : 19 :  "  And  he  came  to  Ephesus,  and  left  them  there ;  but  he 
himself  entered  into  the  synagogue  and  reasoned  with  the  Jews." 

Acts  24 : 25 :    "  And  as  he  reasoned  of  righteousness,  temperance,  and 
judgment  to  come1,  Felix  trembled." 
3 


84  MISTAKES  OF  INGERSOLL. 

Rom.  19:1:  "I beseech  you  therefore,  brethren,  by  the  mercies  of 
God,  that  you  present  your  bodies  a  living  sacrifice,  holy,  acceptable 
unto  God,  -which  is  your  reasonable  service." 

Phil.  4:8:  "Finally,  brethren,  whatsoever  things  are  true,  whatso- 
ever things  are  honest,  whatsoever  things  are  just,  whatsoever  things, 
are  pure,  whatsoever  things  are  lovely,  whatsoever  things  are  of  good 
report,  if  there  be  any  virtue,  and  if  there  be  any  praise,  think  on  these 
things." 

1  Thess.  5:21:     "  Prove  all  things ;  hold  fast  that  which  is  good." 

Let  us  look  into  biography,  and  make  a  practical  test  of 
this  theory  that  the  Bible  fetters  thought.  If  so,  those 
who  believe  and  love  it  will  not  be  strong  and  leading 
thinkers.  Let  us  apply  the  test  in  the  ranks  of  science. 

A  Cloud  of  Witnesses. 

Professor  Benjamin  Pierce,  of  Harvard  College,  has- 
recently  completed  a  very  remarkable  course  of  lectures  at 
the  Lowell  Institute,  Boston,  on  "Ideality  in  Science." 
Professor  Pierce,  who  is  now  in  his  seventieth  year,  is,, 
perhaps,  the  most  eminent  mathematical  scholar  in  this 
country,  and  the  author  of  some  of  the  most  profound 
investigations  and  speculations  that  have  been  made  in  the 
realm  of  astronomical  science.  This  man  of  mighty  thought 
must  have  been  emancipated  and  inspired  by  infidelity  (?). 
This  scholar,  whose  mind  may  be  supposed  to  feed  on  fact, 
holds  an  unquestioning  faith  in  a  personal  God  and  the 
immortal  life. 

The  late  Professor  Henry,  of  the  Smithsonian  Institute,. 
was  one  of  the  broadest  and  best  of  scientific  thinkers 
because  infidelity  gave  him  freedom  of  thought  (?).  No, 
ho  was  a  sweet-spirited  Christian  in  his  daily  life. 

Sir  David  Brewster,  another  eminent  scientist,  said  of 
his  Christian  experience:  "I  have  had  this  light  for  many 
years,  and  oh!  how  bright  it  is  to  me." 

Professor  Silliman,  who  is  unsurpassed  in  his  scientific- 


W.  F.  CRAFTS'  REPLY.  35 

department,  must  also  be  classed  under  the  head  of  "  the 
ignorant  religious  mass,"  for  he  was  another  of  the  very 
many  Christian  scientists,  whom  the  world  has  ignorantly ( ?) 
supposed  a  thinker,  in  spite  of  Mr.  Ingersoll's  theory  of 
faith  as  being  a  mental  bondage.  lie  says:  "  I  can  truly 
declare  that,  in  the  study  and  exhibition  of  science  to  my 
pupils  and  fellow  men,  I  have  never  forgotten  to  give  all 
honor  and  glory  to  the  infinite  Creator — happy  if  I  might 
be  the  honored  interpreter  of  a  portion  of  his  works,  and 
of  the  beautiful  structure  and  beneficent  laws  discovered 
therein  by  the  labors  of  many  illustrious  predecessors."" 
We  might  add  scores  of  others  in  each  department  of  sci- 
ence, who  have  found  no  discord  between  the  Word  and! 
world  of  God. 

Who  are  the  four  greatest  thinkers  in  the  realm  of  states- 
manship of  this  century?  Daniel  Webster,  Gladstone,. 
Thiers,  and  Bismarck.  All  of  them,  of  course,  are  enabled 
to  be  thus  broad  and  prominent  as  national  thinkers  by  the 
power  of  infidelity  (?).  No,  each  one  of  them  is  most  posi- 
tive in  his  Christian  belief. 

Webster  declares  the  grandest  thought  which  ever  entered 
his  mind  was  that  of  "  personal  accountability  to  God." 

Gladstone  gives  much  of  time  and  attention  to  religious 
writing. 

Thiers  says,  in  his  last  days:  "I  often  invoke  that  God 
in  whom  I  am  happy  to  believe,  who  is  denied  by  fools  and 
ignorant  people,  but  in  whom  the  enlightened  man  finds 
his  consolation  and  hope." 

Bismarck  is  called,  in  derision,  "  the  God-fearing  man," 
in  reference  to  his  well-known  religious  principles.  (Busch's 
Bismarck,  p.  200). 

We  might  add  to  these  Charles  Sumner,  who  called 
Christianity  the  u  true  religion  "  and  "  our  faith,"  and  whose 
speeches  constantly  recognize  God  and  Christianity. 


86  MISTAKES  OF  INGERSOLL. 

Who  arc  the  leading  literary  characters  of  the  century? 
Victor  Hugo,  what  of  him  ?  Did  you  ever  read  his  chapter 
on  prayer  in  Les  Miserables,  and  his  grand  tribute  to 
immortality,  uttered  as  a  rebuke  to  a  company  of  French 
physicians,  a  few  years  ago?  Moore — have  you  read  his 
"  Paradise  and  the  Peri,"  the  Gospel  of  repentance,  and  do 
you  know  him  as  the  author  of  the  hymn,  "  Come,  ye  Dis- 
consolate?" "Walter  Scott — have  you  read  his  translation 
of  "Dies  Irae,"  uttered  so  devoutly  in  his  last  days: 

"  Oh !  in  that  day,  that  dreadful  day, 
When  Heaven  and  earth  shall  pass  away, 
Be  Thou,  oh  Christ,  the  sinner's  st  iy, 
When  Heaven  and  earth  shall  pass  away." 

And  Shakspeare,  whom  Mr.  Ingersoli  accounts  one  of 
the  grandest  of  human  minds,  was  great  enough  to  believe 
in  the  Bible.  And  so  Thackeray,  AVhittier,  Dickens,  Gold- 
smith, Longfellow,  and  Irving  were  intellectual  believers  in 
Ohristianity. 

The  following  men,  also  lacking  the  freedom  and  power 
of  thought  that  comes  by  materialism  (?)  became  mentally 
so  weak  (?)  that  they  declared,  in  varying  terms,  after  read- 
ing largely  in  all  departments  of  literature,  that  the  Bible 
is  the  best  book  in  the  world:  Sir  Walter  Scott,  Sir  Wil- 
liam Jones,  George  Gilfillan,  Milton,  Pollok,  Coleridge, 
Collins,  Bacon,  John  Adams,  Napoleon,  James  Freeman 
Clarke,  Lange,  Kitto,  Robertson.  And  Channing  put  the 
Gospels  where  these  others  place  the  whole  Bible — above 
all  other  literature. 

/    The  following  persons  strongly  commend  the  Bible  as  a 

/whole:     Dr.    Samuel  Johnson,  Carlyle,   Dryden,   Young, 

/    Cowper,  Locke,  Newton,  Seward,  Dawson,  Franklin,  John 

Quincy  Adams,  Bellows,  Bartol,  Theodore  Parker,  Kons- 

\  Beau,  Guizot,  Bunsen,  Story,  Webster,  Diderot,  Matthe\r 

Arnold,  and  Huxley. 


W.  F.  GRAFTS'  REPLY.  37 

The  following  persons  among  many  others  declare  that/  \ 
they  found  in  the  Bible,  not  fetters  for  thought,  but  their       \ 
itrongest  inspiration  to  thought :     Daniel  Webster,  Fisher       J 
A.mes,  Mitchell,  the  Astronomer,  Ruskin  and  Goethe. 

It  is  evident  that  very  many  others  might  truly  have 
said  the  same,  including  Theodore  Parker  and  Mr.  Froth- 
ingham  and  other  skeptics,  whose  writings  show  plainly 
that  they  owe  their  beauties  of  style  to  a  familiarity  with 
the  Bible. 

Jesus  Christ. 

With  these  great  men  who  have  commended  the  Bible 
should  be  mentioned  one  who  is  confessed  by  Christians  and 
skeptics  the  greatest  and  best  of  men,  JESUS  CHRIST,  who 
used  the  Psalms  as  His  prayer  and  hymn  book,  and  always 
spoke  of  the  whole  Old  Testament  as  the  Eternal  Law  Book 
of  humanity.  There  is  not  time,  nor  is  it  necessary  now 
to  answer  in  detail  all  the  hard  questions  that  can  be  asked 
about  single  Bible  passages.  But  these  great  men  and 
Christ  saw  all  these  points  of  difficulty,  and  yet  accepted 
the  Bible  as  the  pre-eminent  book,  commending  it  to  the 
perusal  of  all  as  the  source  of  the  mind's  grandest  inspira- 
tions. Side  by  side  with  these  scores  of  the  world's  fore- 
most men  who  declare  the  Bible  the  best  of  books,  or 
strongly  commend  it,  or  point  to  it  as  the  source  of  their 
grandest  thoughts,  put  the  opinion  of  that  more  learned  (?), 
more  profound  (?),  more  unprejudiced  (?)  scholar  and  phi- 
losopher, Colonel  Ingersoll,  who  stands  almost  alone  among 
educated  men  in  strongly  condemning  the  Bible,  which  his 
bigotry  prints  with  a  small  "  b  "  in  spite  of  the  rules  of 
grammar,  and  describes  it  as  about  the  worst  book  of  the 
world,  in  these  words  among  others:  "If  men  will  read 
the  Bible  as  they  read  other  books,  they  will  be  amazed  that 
they  ever,  for  one  moment,  supposed  a  being  of  infinite 
wisdom  to  be  the  author  of  such  ignorance  and  of  such 


88  MISTAKES  OF  1NGERSOLL. 

atrocity.  The  Bible  burned  heretics,  built  dungeons, 
founded  the  inquisition,  and  trampled  upon  all  the  liberties 
of  men.  All  the  philosophy  of  the  Bible  would  not  make 
one  scene  in  Hamlet.  I  could  write  a  better  book  than  the 
Bible,  which  is  full  of  barbarism." 

Amazing  Ignorance  of  Infidels  Concerning  the  Scriptures — Hume's 

Ignorance  of  the  New  Testament  —  Tom  Paine 

Without  a  Bible. 

"  But  some  one  asks,  Are  there  not  other  eminent  men 
who  have  despised  and  condemned  the  Bible?  Most  cer- 
tainly, as  there  are  those  who  have  entered  their  protest 
against  almost  any  and  everything  mentionable.  It  is, 
nevertheless,  worthy  of  note  that,  in  most  instances,  those 
who  have  sought  the  more  resolutely  to  defame  the  Holy 
Scriptures  are  those  who  are  comparatively  unacquainted 
with  them.  David  Hume,  distinguished  both  as  essayist 
and  historian,  standing  among  the  most  noted  of  modern 
skeptical  philosophers,  was  a  resolute  objector  of  the  Bible, 
but  was  notoriously  ignorant  of  its  contents.  Dr.  Johnson, 
in  conversation  with  several  literary  friends,  once  observed, 
in  his  usual,  direct,  and  unequivocal  manner,  that  no  hon- 
est man  could  be  a'  deist,  because  no  man  could  be  so  after 
a  fair  examination  of  the  truths  of  Christianity.  When 
the  name  of  Hume  was  mentioned  to  him  as  an  exception 
to  his  remark,  he  replied:  'No,  sir;  Hume  once  owned  to 
a  clergyman  in  the  bishopric  of  Durham,  that  he  had  never 
read  even  the  New  Testament  with  attention.'  "* 

Let  us  cross-question  another  important  witness  as  to  his 
knowledge  of  the  book  against  which  he  offers  testimony. 
We  ask  Thomas  Paine  as  to  his  familiarity  with  the  Bible, 
which  he  so  bitterly  condemns,  and  he  replies,  "  I  keep  no 
Bible."  I  hold  in  my  hand  a  sermon  preached  in  New 

*Froin  "  What  Noted  Men  Think  of  the  Bible." 


W.  F.  CRAFTS'  REPLY.  89 

York  City,  by  Rev.  W.  F.  Ilatfield,  in  reply  to  Mr.  Inger- 
•eoll's  lecture  on  Thomas  Paine,  in  which  reply,  with  abund- 
ant facts,  such  as  would  convince  a  court,  it  is  shown  con- 
clusively that  Thomas  Paine  was  vicious  and  corrupt  in  life, 
.and  miserable  and  remorseful  in  death.  As  to  the  value  of 
Voltaire's  testimony  against  Christianity,  Carlyle  declares  it 
worthless  on  the  ground  of  lack  of  knowledge  on  the  sub- 
ject of  which  he  testifies.  lie  feays:  "It  is  a  serious 
ground  of  offense  against  Voltaire  that  he  intermeddled  in 
religion  without  being  himself,  in  any  measure,  religious; 
that,  in  a  word,  he  ardently,  and  with  long-continued  effort, 
warred  against  Christianity,  without  understanding,  beyond 
.the  mere  superfices,  what  Christianity  was." 

There  are  also  a  class  of  specialists  who  are  quoted  against 
the  Bible,  and  who  manifest  a  hostility  to  it,  whose  testi- 
mony is  of  little  value  because  of  the  narrow  range  in 
which  they  have  studied,  making  them  authorities  only  in 
their  special  department.  Ilalley,  the  astronomer,  once 
avowed  his  skepticism  in  presence  of  Sir  Isaac  Newton. 
The  venerable  man  replied:  "  Sir,  you  have  never  studied 
these  subjects  and  I  have.  Do  not  disgrace  yourself  as  a 
philosopher  by  presuming  to  judge  on  questions  you  have 
never  examined." 

Distributed  Ignorance  and  Concentrated  Hatred — Probable  Cause 
of  Ingersoll's  Infidelity. 

The  largest  proportion  of  skeptics,  however,  are  mere 
sophomores,  spoiled  with  a  little  learning  which  is  only 
"distributed  ignorance,"  well  represented  by  a  precocious 
boy  of  fourteen,  whom  I  found  writing  an  essay  on  "  Mat- 
rimony," and  who  left  it  during  my  call  to  argue  in  favor 
of  Ingersollism  and  against  the  Bible  (of  which  he  knew 
as  little  as  of  matrimony),  which  he  admitted  he  had  never 
read,  as  do  nearly  all  skeptics  when  questioned  on  this 


40  MISTAKES  OF  INGERSOLL. 

matter.  The  bitterness  of  the  opposition  to  Christianity 
of  Mr.  Ingersoll  and  other  infidels  is  explained  by  the  Earl 
of  Rochester,  who  was  converted  from  infidelity  and  said,. 
in  explanation  of  his  former  course  and  that  of  others:  "  A 
bad  heart,  a  bad  heart  is  the  great  objection  against  the  Holy 
Book."  "  The  fool  hath  said  in  his  Jieart  "  (not  his  head) 
"  there  is  no  God."  The  bad  heart  is  father  to  the  infidel 
thought.  It  is  like  the  case  of  the  old  woman  who  broke 
her  looking-glass  because  it  showed  the  wrinkles  creeping 
into  her  fading  faco.  Men  strive  to  break  the  Bible  glass 
that  shows  the  wrinkles  and  defects  of  character.  The 
whole  appearance  and  tone  and  spirit  of  Mr.  Ingersoll  in 
his  lectures  is  suggestive  of  this  heart  hatred  against  the 
book  which  he  attacks,  "kicks,"  "hates,"  not  with  the 
calmness  of  logic,  but  with  the  bitterness  of  a  heart-hos- 
tility. Those  infidels  who  have  faithfully  examined  the 
Bible  have  usually  been  convinced  of  its  truth  and  con- 
verted to  Christianity.  Among  them,  such  distinguished 
names  as  Lord  Lyttleton,  Gilbert  West,  Soame  Jenyus, 
Bishop  Thompson,  and  at  least  a  score  of  notable  cases  in 
connection  with  Mr.  Moody's  revival  meetings  in  England. 
"What  comparison,  let  us  ask,  will  the  number  of  cele- 
brated skeptics,  even  when  the  best  possible  showing  is 
made,  hold  with  the  distinguished  men  who  have  ranked 
the  sacred  volume  above  all  others?  Remember  that  your 
mother's  love  for  the  Bible  and  your  own  early  reverence 
for  it,  have  the  indorsement  of  the  grandest  and  profound- 
est  minds  which  have  been  known  and  honored  among 
humanity." 

The  Truth  of  the  Whole  Matter. 

But  salvation  is  not  by  belief  in  a  book,  or  a  creed,  or  a    ), 
Church,  but  by  belief  in  the  person  of  Jesus  Christ.     Mr. 
Ingersoll  skips  this  hard  problem,    "  What   think  ye   of    I 


W.  F.  CRAFTS'  REPLY.  41 

Christ?"  He  hardly  refers  to  this  citadel  of  Christianity 
half  a  dozen  times  in  all  his  lectures,  making  his  attacks 
chiefly  on  human  outposts  and  then  claiming  to  have  over- 
borne the  citadel  of  Christianity.  Even  Strauss,  Kenan, 
Rousseau,  Theodore  Parker,  Napoleon,  and  Richter — none 
of  them  experimental  Christians — unite  as  a  jury  in  the 
verdict  expressed  by  Richter  in  regard  to  Christ,  "  He  is 
the  purest  among  the  mighty,  the  mightiest  among  the 
pure."  We  have,  then,  two  facts  as  a  sure  anchorage  of  our 
Christianity  to-day.  All  scholarly  skepticism  agrees  with 
Christianity  that  the  Bible  is  the  best  of  books  and  that 
Christ  is  the  best  of  men.  He  who  thus  accepts  the  Bible 
and  Christ  can  not  logically  or  consistently  stop  short  of  a 
Christian  life,  following  Christ  as  his  pattern,  and  walking 
by  the  Bible  as  his  rule. 

We  may  differ  about  creeds,  and  Church  forms,  and  Bible 
interpretation,  but  he  who  has  faith  and  faithfulness  toward 
the  person,  Jesus  Christ  shall  be  saved.  Let  us  then 
devoutly  utter  the  creed  of  Daniel  Webster,  as  inscribed 
by  his  own  request  on  his  tombstone  at  Marshfield: 

"  LORD,  I 
BELIEVE,  HELP 
THOU  MINE  UNBELIEF. 
PHILOSOPHICAL  ARGUMENT 
ESPECIALLY  THAT   DRAWN  FROM 
THE  VASTNESS  OF  THE   UNIVERSE  IN  COM- 
PARISON WITH  THE  APPARENT  INSIGNIFICANCE 
OF  THIS  GLOBE,  HAS  SOMETIMES  SHAKEN  MY  REASON 
FOR    THE    FAITH    THAT   18   IN    ME;     BUT   MY    HEART    HAS 
ASSUKED  ME  THAT  THE  GOSPEL  OF  JESUS  CHRIST  MUST 
BE  A  DIVINE  REALITY.      THE   SERMON  ON  THE 
MOUNT   CAN  NOT    BE   A   MERELY   HUMAN 
PRODUCTION.      THIS  BELIEF  ENTERS 
INTO  THE  VERY  DEPTH  OF  MY 
CONSCIENCE.    THE  WHOLE 
HISTORY  OF  MAN 
PROVES  IT." 


CHAPLAIN  McCABE'S  REPLY.  43 


CHAPLAIN  M'CABE'S  REPLY. 


The  Famous  Chaplain  has  a  Remarkable  Dream— He  Sees  the 
Great  City  of  Ingtrsollville — Which  Ingersoll  and  the  Infidel 
Host  Enter — And  are  Chut  in  for  Six  Months — Remarkable 
Condition  of  Things  Outcido  and  Inside— Happiness  and  Mis- 
ery— Ingersoll  Finally  Petitions  for  a  Church  and  sends  for 
a  Lot  of  Preachers. 

I  had  a  dream  which  was  not  all  a  dream.  I  thought  I 
was  on  a  long  journey  through  a  beautiful  country,  when 
suddenly  I  came  to  a  great  city  with  walls  fifteen  feet  high. 
At  the  gate  stood  a  sentinel,  whoso  shining  armor  reflected 
back  the  rays  of  the  morning  sun.  As  I  was  about  to 
salute  him  and  pass  into  the  city,  he  stopped  me  and  said: 

"Do  you  believe  in  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ?" 

I  answered:     "  Yes,  with  all  my  heart." 

"  Then,"  said  he,  '•  you  can  not  enter  here.  No  man  or 
woman  who  acknowledges  that  name  can  pass  in  here 
Stand  aside!*'  said  he,  "  they  are  coming." 

I  looked  down  the  road,  and  saw  a  vast  multitude 
approaching.  It  was  led  by  a  military  officer. 

"  Who  is  that?"  I  asked  of  the  sentinel. 

"That,"  he  replied,  "is  the  great  Colonel  KobertI , 

the  founder  of  the  City  of  Ingersollville." 

"  Who  is  he?"  I  ventured  to  inquire. 

"  He  is  a  great  and  mighty  warrior,  who  fought  in  many 
bloody  battles  for  the  Union  during  the  great  war." 

I  felt  ashamed  of  my  ignorance  of  history,  and  stood 
silently  watching  the  procession.  I  had  heard  of  a  Colonel 


44  MISTAKES  OF  INOERSOLL. 

I ,  ******  but>  of 

course,  this  could  not  be  the  man. 

The  procession  came  near  enough  for  me  to  recognize- 
some  of  the  faces.  I  noted  two  infidel  editors  of  national 
celebrity,  followed  by  great  wagons  containing  steam  presses. 
There  were  also  five  members  of  Congress. 

All  the  noted  infidels  and  scoffers  of  the  country  seemed 
to  be  there.  Most  of  them  passed  in  unchallenged  by  tho 
sentinel,  but  at  last  a  meek-looking  individual  with  a  white 
necktie  approached,  and  he  was  stopped.  I  saw  at  a  glanco- 
it  was  a  well-known  "  liberal "  preacher  of  New  York. 

"  Do  you  believe  ia  the  Lord  Jesus?"  said  the  sentinel. 

"  Not  much!"  said  the  doctor. 

Everybody  laughed,  and  he  was  allowed  to  pass  in. 

There  were  artists  there,  with  glorious  pictures;  singers, 
with  ravishing  voices;  tragedians  and  comedians,  whose 
names  have  a  world- wide  fame. 

Then  came  another  division  of  the  infidel  host — saloon- 
keepers by  thousands,  proprietors  of  gambling  hells,  brothels,, 
and  theatres. 

Still  another  division  swept  by:  burglars,  thieves,  thugs, 
incendiaries,  highwaymen,  murderers  —  all — all  inarching 
in.  My  vision  grew  keener.  1  beheld,  and  lo!  Satan  him- 
self brought  up  the  rear. 

High  afloat  above  the  mass  was  a  banner  on  which  was 
inscribed:  "  What  has  Christianity  done  for  the  country?" 
and  anotlier  on  which  was  inscribed:  "Down  with  the 
churches!  Away  with  Christianity — it  interferes  with  our 
happiness!"  And  then  came  a  murmur  of  voices,  that 
grew  louder  and  louder  until  a  shout  went  up  like  the  roar 
of  Niagara:  "Away  with  Him!  Crucify  Him,  crucify 
Him!"  I  felt  no  desire  now  to  enter  Ingersollville. 

As  the  last  of  the  procession  entered,  a  few  men  and 
women,  with  broad -brim  mod  hats  and  plain  bonnets,  made 


CHAPLAIN  McCABE'S  REPLY.  45 

their  appearance,  and  wanted  to  go  in  as  missionaries,  but 
they  were  turned  rudely  away.  A  zealous  young  Metho- 
dist exhorter,  with  a  Bible  under  his  arm,  asked  permission 
to  enter,  but  the  sentinel  swore  at  him  awfully.  Then  I 
thought  I  saw  Brother  Moody  applying  for  admission,  but 
he  was  refused.  I  could  not  help  smiling  to  hear  Moody 
say,  as  he  turned  sadly  away: 

"  Well!  they  let  me  live  and  work  in  Chicago;  it  is  very 
strange  they  won't  let  me  into  Ingersollville." 

The  sentinel  went  inside  the  gate  and  shut  it  with  a 
bang;  and  I  thought,  as  soon  as  it  was  closed,  a  mighty 
angel  came  down  with  a  great  iron  bar,  and  barred  the  gate 
on  the  outside,  and  wrote  upon  it  in  letters  of  fire,  "  Doomed 
to  live  together  six  months."  Then  he  went  away,  and  all 
was  silent,  except  the  noise  of  the  revelry  and  shouting  that 
•came  from  within  the  city  walls. 

I  went  away,  and  as  I  journeyed  through  the  land  I  could 
not  believe  my  eyes.  Peace  and  plenty  smiled  everywhere. 
The  jails  were  all  empty,  the  penitentiaries  were  without 
occupants.  The  police  of  great  cities  were  idle.  Judges 
sat  in  court-rooms  with  nothing  to  do.  Business  was  brisk. 
Many  great  buildings,  formerly  crowded  with  criminals, 
were  turned  into  manufacturing  establishments.  Just  about 
this  time  the  President  of  the  United  States  called  for  a 
Day  of  Thanksgiving.  I  attended  services  in  a  Presby- 
terian Church.  The  preacher  dwelt  upon  the  changed  con- 
dition of  affairs.  As  he  went  on,  and  depicted  the  great 
prosperity  that  had  come  to  the  country,  and  gave  reasons 
for  devout  thanksgiving,  I  saw  one  old  deacon  clap  his 
handkerchief  over  his  mouth  to  keep  from  shouting  right 
out.  An  ancient  spinster,  who  never  did  like  the  "noisy" 
Methodists — a  regular  old  blue-stocking  Presbyterian — 
couldn't  hold  in.  She  expressed  the  thought  of  every  heart 
by  shouting  with  all  her  might,  "Glory  to  God  for  Inger- 


46  MISTAKES  OF  INGERSOLL. 

sollville!"  A  young  theological  student  lifted  up  his  hand 
and  devoutly  added,  "  Esto  perpetua"  Everybody  smiled. 
The  country  was  almost  delirious  with  joy.  Great  pro- 
cessions of  children  swept  along  the  highways,  singing, 

"  We'll  not  give  up  the  Bible, 
God's  blessed  Word  of  Truth." 

Vast  assemblies  of  reformed  inebriates,  with  their  wives 
and  children,  gathered  in  the  open  air.  No  building  would 
hold  them.  I  thought  I  was  in  one  meeting  where  Bishop 
Simpson  made  an  address,  and  as  he  closed  it  a  mighty 
shout  went  up  till  the  earth  rang  again.  O,  it  was  won- 
derful !  and  then  we  all  stood  up  and  sang  with  tears  of  joy, 

"  All  hail  the  power  of  Jesus'  name ! 

Let  angels  prostrate  fall ; 
Bring  forth  the  royal  diadem, 

And  crown  him  Lord  of  all." 

The  six  months  had  well-nigh  gone.  I  made  iny  way 
back  again  to  the  gate  of  Ingersollville.  A  dreadful  silence 
reigned  over  the  city,  broken  only  by  the  sharp  crack  of  a 
revolver  now  and  then.  I  saw  a  man  trying  to  get  in  at  the- 
gate,  and  I  said  to  him,  "  My  friend,  where  are  you  from?'* 

"  I  live  in  Chicago,"  said  he,  "  and  they've  taxed  us  to 
death  there;  and  I've  heard  of  this  city,  and  I  want  to  go- 
in  to  buy  some  real  estate  in  this  new  and  growing  place." 

He  failed  utterly  to  remove  the  bar,  but  by  some  means 
he  got  a  ladder  about  twelve  feet  long,  and  with  its  aid,  he 
climbed  up  upon  the  wall.  With  an  eye  to  business,  he 
shouted  to  the  first  person  ho  saw: 

"  Hallo,  there  ! — what's  the  price  of  real  estate  in  Inger- 
sollville ?" 

"Nothing  !"  shouted  a  voice;  "you  can  have  all  yon 
want  if  you'll  just  take  it  and  pay  the  taxes." 

"  What  made  your  taxes  so  high?"  said  the  Chicago  man. 
I  noted  the  answer  carefully;  I  shall  never  forget  it. 


CHAPLAIN  McCABE'S  REPLY.  47 

"  We've  had  to  build  forty  new  jails  and  fourteen  peni- 
tentiaries— a  lunatic  asylum  and  an  orphan  asylum  in 
every  ward;  we've  had  to  disband  the  public  schools,  and 
it  takes  all  the  city  revenue  to  keep  up  the  police  force." 

""Where's  my  old  friend,  I ?"  said  the  Chicago  man. 

"  O,  he  is  going  about  to-day  with  a  subscription  paper 
to  build  a  church.  They  have  gotten  up  a  petition  to  send 
out  for  a  lot  of  preachers  to  come  and  hold  revival  services. 
If  we  can  only  get  them  over  the  wall,  we  hope  there's  a 
future  for  Ingersollville  yet." 

The  six  months  ended.  Instead  of  opening  the  door, 
however,  a  tunnel  was  dug  under  the  wall  big  enough  for 
one  person  to  crawl  through  at  a  time.  First  came  two 

bankrupt  editors,  followed  by  Colonel  I himself;  and 

then  the  whole  population  crawled  through.  Then  I 
thought,  somehow,  great  crowds  of  Christians  surrounded 
the  city.  There  was  Moody,  and  Hammond,  and  Earle, 
and  hundreds  of  Methodist  preachers  and  exhorters,  and 
they  struck  up,  singing  together, 

"  Come,  ye  sinners,  poor  and  needy." 
A  needier  crowd  never  was  seen  on  earth  before. 

I  conversed  with  some  of  the  inhabitants  of  the  aban- 
doned city,  and  asked  a  few  of  them  this  question: 

"  Do  you  believe  in  Hell?" 

I  can  not  record  the  answers;  they  were  terribly  orthodox. 

One  old  man  said,  "  I've  been  there  on  probation  for  six 
months,  and  I  don't  want  to  join." 

I  knew  by  that  he  was  an  old  Methodist  backslider.  The 
sequel  of  it  all  was  a  great  revival,  that  gathered  in  a 
mighty  harvest  from  the  ruined  City  of  Ingersollville. 


[Photographed  by  Moshet-.] 


DR.  aWAZEY'8  REPLY.  49 


DR.  SWAZEY'S  REPLY. 


Momentary  View  of  Col.  Ingersoll  Through  the  Doctor's  Glass — 

The  Bible  on  the   Meridian — What  the  Doctor  Sees  in 

the  Great  Book. 

THE  genial,  eloquent,  sensational,  unfair,  evasive  Colonel 
Ingcrsoll  has  come  and  gone.  Nobody  has  been  alarmed. 
But  out  of  400,000  people  a  large  audience  was  found  to 
laugh  with  him  at  Moses  and  the  Bible.  He  eschewed 
argument  altogether.  He  did  not  attempt  to  instruct  any- 
body. He  had  only  a  campaign  speech  to  make  against — 
God.  This  article  is  simply  an  invitation  to  any  fair- 
minded  doubter  to  consider  the  reasonableness  of  a  laugh 
at  the  Christian's  Bible.  Is  this  book  a  bad  book,  or  a 
silly  book,  just  fit  for  jeer  and  sarcasm  ?  Take  a  common- 
sense  view.  In  order  to  do  so,  it  is  necessary  to  take  a 
common-place  view,  to  bring  to  the  foreground  that  which 
all  assailants  like  to  leave  in  the  background,  namely,  that 
the  Bible  teaches  by  commandment  and  Drecept  only  that 
which  is  pure  and  good. 

Relating  to  man's  duty  to  himself,  it  teaches  personal 
purity,  sexual  and  otherwise;  temperance  in  meats,  drinks, 
opinions  and  ambition,  responsibleness  for  inclinations, 
thoughts  and  actions;  a  paramount  love  for  the  truth; 
courage  and  hopefulness  in  all  lawful  purposes;  self-im- 
provement, and  a  cheerful  enjoyment  of  the  good  things  of 
life.  Relating  to  man's  duty  to  others,  the  Bible  teaches 
honesty  between  man  and  man;  restitution  when  wrong 
has  been  done,  wittingly  or  unwittingly;  the  damnableness 
4 


50  MISTAKES  OF  INOERSOLL. 

of  adultery,  seduction,  and  everything  that  violates  the 
purity  of  a  family  or  a  person;  the  forgiveness  of  injuries; 
a  charitable  view  of  human  actions,  including  patience  and 
forbearance,  mercy;  the  duty  of  life-long  usefulness,  kind- 
ness and  helpfulness;  a  genial  temper  in  social  and  business- 
life;  obedience  to  magistrates;  and  a  multitude  of  minor 
virtues.  Relating  to  the  moral  order  of  things,  the  Bible 
teaches  that  wrong-doing  is  unavoidably  the  way  of  sorrow, 
and  right-doing  the  way  of  happiness. 

These  teachings,  given  not  in  bald  outline,  but  in  fresh 
and  animated  pictures  and  discourses,  make  up  the  ethical 
system  of  the  Bible  from  the  first  lesson  of  the  antediluvian 
age  to  the  last  words  of  the  book,  which  are  against  whore- 
mongers, and  all  makers  and  lovers  of  a  lie,  and  in  praise 
of  all  who  are  just  and  good.  And,  still  further,  in  no- 
instance  is  there  left  on  record  an  immoral  precept,  or  one 
which  impurity,  or  injustice,  or  dishonesty,  or  unkindncss, 
or  selfishness  in  any  form  are  proposed.  There  is  no  mis- 
take in  that  direction.  Still  further,  we  challenge  any 
assailant  to  name  a  virtue,  acknowledged  to  be  such  by  the 
mass  of  mankind,  which  is  wanting  in  the  catalogue  of 
Bible  virtues.  The  ethical  system  is  as  complete  as  it  ia 
pure,  as  comprehensive  as  it  is  sound  and  true,  absolutely 
covering  the  whole  area  of  man's  duty  to  himself  and  to- 
his  fellow-man;  a  system  sounding  all  depths,  touching  the 
most  delicate  fibres  of  life,  and  without  a  flaw  or  an  omis- 
sion. Its  precepts  and  laws  come  in  their  own  order,  but 
VThey  all  appear  in  the  record  first  or  last.  The  Buddhistic 
"decalogue"  seems  to  have  been  in  advance  of  the  Mosaic 
\  in  this — that  it  had  two  commandments  wan  ting  in  the  lat- 
ter—"Thou  shaltnot  lie,"  "Thoushalt  not  get  drunk." 
But  these  commandments,  although  not  in  our  own  deca- 
logue, are  written  over  and  over  again  in  the  Old  Testament 
as  well  as  the  New.  And  yet  once  more  the  moral  require- 


DR.  SWAZET'S  REPLY.  51 

ments  of  the  Bible,  are  as  clear  of  puerilities  as  they  are  of 
impurity  or  oblique  vision.  The  Buddhistic  decalogue 
steps  right  down  to  a  moral  weakness  of  which  the  Bible  is 
never  guilty.  "  Thou  shalt  not  visit  dances  nor  theatrical 
representations."  "  Thou  shalt  not  use  ornaments  nor  per- 
fumery in  dress." 

Occultation  of  Ingersoll's  Good  Sense — General  Survey  of  Deities 
— Scope  of  Divine  Revelation. 

Now  the  common-sense  question  occurs  whetner  a  book 
containing  such  a  system,  always  teaching  men  what  is 
good  and  pure,  always  warning  him  against  evil,  and 
encouraging  him  to  be  a  strong,  sound,  pure,  complete  man 
in  everything,  is  worthy  of  sneers,  ribaldry  and  irrever- 
ence, even  though  it  were  full  of  unbelievable  fables  and 
fantastic  ideas  of  immortality.  In  what  spirit  can  a  com- 
pany of  people  shout  their  applause  when  a  book  whose 
lines  of  thought  aro  always  leading  a  man  above  himself 
is  made  the  target  of  sarcasm  and  ridicule,  and  the  cry  is 
almost  in  so  many  words,  "  Down  with  the  Bible!"  Let 
us  go  a  little  beyond  the  strictly  ethical.  The  general  ideas 
of  our  Bible  about  God  commend  themselves  to  the  best 
wisdom  of  mankind.  We  make  no  reference  now  to  any 
sect  of  theologies,  but  to  the  theological  atmosphere  both 
of  the  Old  and  New  Testaments,  namely,  that  God  is,, 
and  being  the  Creator,  the  life  and  force  of  all  things,  in 
other  words,  as  our  Bible  has  it,  the  Living  God,  superin- 
tends all  human  affairs.  As  a  Creator  He  has  not  forgotten 
His  work;  as  a  Father  He  is  always  mindful  of  His  off- 
springs; and  caring  for  man  is  leading  him  on  by  a  great 
hope  to  a  great  inheritance;  that  His  face  is  against  evil 
doing,  that  He  smiles  on  all  who  strive  to  be  just  and  good, 
and  that  in  sorrow  and  want  and  temptation  He  folds  to 
His  great  heart  a  righteous  and  even  a  repentant  man;  and 


62  MISTAKES  OF  INGERSOLL. 

as  the  shuttle  goes  back  and  forth,  knitting  into  each  other 
the  soiled  and  blood-stained  threads,  He  is  weaving  there- 
from a  garment  of  light  for  mankind;  that  superstition, 
despotism,  slavery  and  war  are  only  other  names  for  His 
patience,  while  man  is  learning  the  great  lesson.  This  is 
the  Bible  interpretation  of  the  incomprehensible  Cause  and 
Spirit  of  the  universe,  that  He  is  alive,  and  the  Father  and 
Friend  of  man  now,  and  will  have  some  more  for  him  after 
the  years  have  rolled  by. 

Suppose,  now,  it  be  all  untrue,  is  there  not  something  in 
this  dream  or  conceit  that  should  bring  a  sigh  rather  than 
a  sneer  from  the  heart  of  the  unbeliever?  The  god  of 
Brahmanism  is  an  abstraction  without  attributes,  the  great 

O 

nothing  of  the  universe.  Much  the  same  is  true  of  Budd- 
hism, only  in  another  way.  It  has  law  and  virtue,  but  no 
V  God  of  love,  and  asks  no  trust  or  faith.  The  same  is  true 
in  the  unchanging  round  which  knows  no  spirit  above  and 
no  hope  below,  taught  by  Confucius  to  his  disciples.  The 
religion  of  the  Persians  presented  a  god  who  had  a  devil- 
god  for  a  yokefellow,  keeping  up  the  eternal  and  never- to- 
be-ended  quarrel  of  good  and  evil.  Our  Bible  begins  with 
the  idea  that  God  is  one  God,  the  only  and  the  Supreme, 
and  ends  with  this  one  God  sending  angels  down  to  say  to 
the  weary  world,  "  Peace  on  earth  good  will  to  men." 
Away  beyond  all  the  faiths  and  all  the  Bibles  held  sacred 
by  mankind,  ours  alone  declares  that  man  is  not  an  orphan, 
that  good  and  evil  are  not  eternal  antagonisms,  in  other 
words,  that  the  Great  Supreme  is  our  Father  in  Heaven. 
True  or  false,  wisdom  has  taught  nothing  more  inspiriting  or 
helpful  to  man.  Neither  imagination  nor  credulity  has  else- 
where painted  a  vision  so  attractive,  or  out  of  the  "  silences  " 
and  "  eternities,"  and  mysteries,  whispered  so  good  a  word 
in  the  ears  of  mortals.  This  idea  of  lordship  and  father- 
hood is  not  incidental.  It  runs  through  every  narration, 


DR.  SWAZEY'S  REPLY.  63 

is  implied  in  every  precept,  and  re-affirmed  in  every  prom- 
ise. And  even  if  it  be  beyond  proof  it  makes  the  whole 
Bible  at  least  a  golden  dream. 

Suppose  now  one  does  not  take  as  absolutely  and  histor- 
ically true  the  story  of  Adam's  rib  and  the  woman,  or  of 
the  fish  swallowing  a  man  and  throwing  him  unhurt  on  the 
shore,  does  not  the  high  moral  tone  of  every  command 
and  every  precept  everywhere  illumined  by  [this  pure  and 
golden  dream,  entitle  this  book  to  the  reverence  of  man- 
kind ?  And  especially  since  by  the  common  consent  the  idea 
of  virtue  in  our  Bible  goes  beyond  the  many  excellent 
things  of  Confucius,  Zoroaster  and  the  other  sacred  writers 
of  other  religions,  and  its  idea  of  the  "  living  God  "  sur- 
passes in  purity  and  attractiveness,  and  in  consolation  and 
hope,  all  other  religions,  is  not  this  purest  blossom  of  the 
instinct,  if  you  please  to  call  it  so,  of  duty  and  faith,  of 
inestimable  value  as  the  guide  and  hope  of  man,  even 
though  it  were  overlaid  with  ten-fold  more  difficulties  than 
the  most  ingenious  scoffer  can  present?  Or,  if  it  is  not 
reliable  as  a  guide,  is  it  not  worthy  of  reverence  as  the 
proudest  achievement  of  the  hungry  mind  of  man  ? 

The  Great  Central  Figure — Absolute  Unity  of  the  Bible  System. 

Still  further,  this  Bible  has  for  its  central,  or  rather  ter- 
minal, figure  a  name  so  remarkable  that  none  but  the 
obscene  and  profane  use  it  lightly,  a  man  so  remarkable 
that  whatever  the  skeptic  may  say  of  Moses  or  Paul,  his 
tongue  would  refuse  its  office  should  he  attempt  to  catalogue 
the  mistakes  of  Jesus  of  Nazareth.  Voltaire,  Diderot, 
Bolingbroke,  Strauss,  Eenan,  all  speak  reverently  of  this 
One  Man  of  history.  And  yet  the  whole  New  Testament 
is  built  up  on  the  sayings  and  doings  of  this  Man.  And 
not  the  New  Testament  only.  The  Jewish  scriptures,  full 
of  errors  or  not,  were  full  of  the  ideas  of  a  Messiah,  from 


64  MISTAKES  OF  INQERSOLL. 

Moses  to  Malachi.  And  this  marvelous  man  claimed  that 
He  was  that  Messiah.  So  that  the  Old  Testament,  as  well, 
is  a  record  of  various  forms  pointing  to  this  Man.  I  raise 
here  no  question  of  the  truth  of  prophecy;  I  simply  affirm. 
that  this  Man,  whose  purity  and  wisdom  are  so  singularly 
impressive,  claimed  to  be  the  fulfillment  of  those  old 
writings,  identified  Himself  with  Moses  and  David  and 
Isaiah,  and  sanctified  the  great  current  of  thought  which 
from  the  mouths  of  these  men  flowed  along  the  shores  of 
that  elder  world.  So  that  to  revile  the  old  Bible  of  the 
Jews  is  to  revile  Him.  There  is  no  scholar,  orthodox  or 
liberal,  believing  or  skeptical,  who  docs  not  identify  the 
phenomenon  of  Christianity  with  the  phenomenon  of 
Judaism.  Out  of  the  soil  of  Judaic  history  sprung  this 
purer  growth — Jesus  and  the  things  He  taught. 

I  suggest,  therefore,  that  before  one  joins  in  the  laugh 
against  a  religion  which  was  founded  long  anterior  to  any 
other  historical  records  than  its  own,  he  pause  a  little, 
remembering  that  this  remarkable  Man,  who  has  not  yet 
become  antiquated,  quoted  those  old  books  as  His  Bible, 
and  doubtless  had  a  tolerable  understanding  of  their  mean- 
ing and  worth.  And,  perhaps,  if  He  whose  sermon  on  the 
mount  is  yet  as  fresh  in  the  nineteenth  century  as  though 
it  were  uttered  to-day,  found  a  vein  of  precious  ore  in 
those  books,  those  same  veins  may  be  yet  visible  in  our 
time. 

v 

The  Bible  Law  of  Development  vs.  Infidel  Philosophy. 

I  have  given,  you  will  perceive,  room  for  a  large  amount 
of  the  unaccountable  and  incredible  in  a  Bible  worthy  of 
reverence.  In  fact,  there  is  no  occasion,  except  in  the 
peculiarity  of  some  men's  minds,  to  allow  so  much.  There 
is  a  passage  in  the  Bible  that  is  descriptive  of  the  kingdom 
of  Heaven,  and  reads  thus:  "  First  the  blade  and  then  the 


DR.  SWAZEY'S  REPLY.  65 

ear,  and  after  that -the  full  corn  in  the  car."     The  Bible 
here  gives  the  key  to  itself.     It  is  a  statement  of  the  law  of 
development,   intellectual  and  moral.     An  observation  of 
the   Bible  from   the  standpoint  of  this   law  discovers  an 
answer  to  the  objections  that  arc  just  now  brought  against 
our  sacred  Book.     Col.   Ingersoll  and  men  of  his  style  ofN. 
•criticism  (and,   I  am   sorry  to  say,  some  preachers,  also,)    \ 
quote  a  verse  from  Genesis  precisely  as  though  the  same 
words,    or   the   same   event,   were  found   in  the   Gospels.    7 
They  judge  an  act  or  a  usage  recorded   in  the  Pentateuch 
precisely  as  though  it  were  found  in  the  Acts  of  the  Apos- 
tles.    They   make  no  allowance  for  the  stage  of  human 
progress.     They  would  teach  a  child  surveying  before  he 
had   learned  the  multiplication    table.      They   talk   about 
*'  skulls  "  as  indicating  progress,  but  God  must  needs  put 
the  same  ideas  into  a  skull  of  the  Laurentian  period  that 
He  does  into  a  skull  of  to-day.      Otherwise,  God  is  worthy 
of  hate.     They  would  preach  the  doctrine  of  equality  on  ] 
the  deck  of  a  man-of-war.     They  utterly  ignore  the  drill 
that  men  and  nations  need  in  coming  up  to  their  majority. 
They  would  suffer  the  rabble  in  a  court-room  to  vote  down 
the  decision  of  a  judge  on  the  bench.     The  men  who  are 
historically  connected  with  God's  order  of  things  must  dis- 
pense  with   the    great    schoolmaster — experience.       Ideas 
muft   spring  forth  complete,  like  Minerva.     Hafters  and  j 
dome  must  touch  the  skies  the  same  day  the  foundation 
stones  were  laid.     Thoscvaro  the  ideas  with  which  a  certain 
class  of  critics  approach  the  Old  Testament.     If  a  people 
are  not  ripe  for  a  commonwealth,  and  God  gives  them  a  _._ 
king,  God  is  all  wrong.     If  a  people  are  become  a  great 
military  camp  and  Moses  proclaims  martial  law,  Moses  and  — - 
his  God  are  monsters  of  cruelty.     If  there  are  no  jails,  no 
way  of  disposing  of  prisoners  of  war,  and  a  gentle  servi- 
tude is  the  substitute,  God  is  a  great  slave-driver.     If  men's 


56  MISTAKES  OF  INGERSOLL. 

lusts  are  so  greedy  that  even  the  best  of  them  want  more 
wives  than  one,  the  patience  of  God  with  the  slow  growth 
of  moral  ideas  is  translated  as  the  establishment  of  polyg- 
,,  amy.  If  a  people  are  so  vile  and  filthy  that  the  beasts  are 
clean  and  modest  in  comparison,  and  God  sends  an  army 
to  wipe  them  out  of  being,  we  are  pointed  to  the  white 
faces  of  women  and  children  lifted  on  the  crests  of  the 
divine  wrath! 

Common   Sense  View  of  the    Subject — How  it  Eliminates  Poly- 
gamy, Slavery,  etc. 

Common  sense,  in  asking  whether  the  Bible  is  worthy  of 
confidence  would  ask  whether,  as  matter  of  fact,  the  moral 
instruction  of  any  period  of  Bible  record  was  not  fully  up 
to  the  capacity  of  that  period  to  receive  it?  It  would  ask 
another  question — namely,  whether  a  divine  tuition  is  dif- 
ferent from  any  other,  except  that  it  is  more  skillful? — • 
whether,  in  fact,  the  critics  who  compare  an  old  order  of 
things  with  the  highest  state  of  moral  development  are  not 
demanding  that  the  people  under  God's  training  shall  be  a 
miraculous  people,  throwing  off  prejudices  as  they  do  a 
Winter  garment,  bearing  fruit  without  any  intermediate 
period  of  growth  and  blossom,  and,  in  general  terms,  upset- 
ting the  every  day  laws  of  progress.  It  is  this  idealism — 
than  which  nothing  is  more  irrational — which  creates  a 
large  share  of  the  moral  difficulties  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment. It  is  the  insane  or  reckless,  the  idiotic  or  perverse 
tenacity  with  which  men  demand  that  the  divine  teaching 
must  not  suit  itself  to  the  time  in  which  it  was  given,  but 
must  always  be  up  to  the  ripest  periods  of  progress,  that 
gives  any  opportunity  for  the  objugations  of  men  who 
"  can  write  a  better  Bible  "  themselves  than  ours. 

The  two  great  charges  brought  against  the  Bible  are 
polygamy  and  slavery.  Now,  admit  that  in  all  stages, 


DR.  SWAZEY'S  JWPLT.  57 

from  the  chimpanzee  up  to  Darwin,  they  are  wrong  (which   \ 
is  by  no  means  clear),  are  these  charges  true?    The  fact 
that  polygamy  and  slavery  existed  among  the  people  who     I 
were  under  drill  does  not  prove  it.     The  fact  that  there  / 
were   laws   regulating  either  of  these  practices  does  not 
prove  it.     A  law  regulating  the  social  evil  does  not  prove 
that  the  sovereign  people  who  make  the  laws  approve  the 
social  evil,  but  only  that,  if  men  and  women  will  go  wrong, 
society   must  put   up   some   defenses   against  corruption.\ 
Common  sense  inquires  whether  statutory  allowance  is  an  \ 
indorsement.     And  if  that  Remarkable  Man,  commenting 
on  the  divorce  laws  of  Moses,  said  that  Moses  gave  those 
laws  because  the  people  could  not  bear  any  better  laws, 
common  sense  inquires  if  the  same  may  not  be  true  of 
other  recognized  usages  which  are  below  the  ideal  of  an 
advanced  age. 

And  when  one  rails  at  the  Bible  for  its  ill-treatment  of 
women,  the  railing  is  simply  gratuitous.     I  have  read  the 
Old  Testament  more  or  less  carefully  for  many  years,  but  I 
do  not,  at  this  writing,  remember  a  single  word  that  dis-    / 
honors  woman  as  woman.      I  have  read  only  a  little  of 
Brahminical  writings,  but  I  remember  a  sentence  or  two 
about  women.     "A  woman  is  never  fit  for  independence  ;'*— — 
"  Women  have  no  business  with  the  text  of  the  Veda.    _ _ 

*     *     *     Sinful  women  must  be  as  foul  as  falsehood  itself.    

This  is  fixed  law."  Whether  in  the  last  quotation  it  ia 
meant  that  there  is  no  purification  for  a  bad  woman,  or 
what  else,  I  do  not  know;  but  I  do  not  recall  anything  like 
it  in  the  Old  Testament.  Educated  common  sense  knows 
that  women  among  the  Hebrews  occupied  a  vastly  higher 
level  than  the  women  of  all  other  nations.  It  is  simply  \ 
notorious,  that  with  all  the  lapses  from  virtue,  the  Hebrew 
women  were  as  white  as  snow  compared  with  the  women 
of  the  Gentile  world,  and  honor  goes  always  hand  in  hand 
with  virtue. 


-58  MISTAKES  OF  INGER80LL. 


More    Common    Sense  —  The   Great    Ingersoll    Orb    Approaching 
the  Nihilistic  Belt  —  Nebulae. 

Common  sense  demands  that  in  judgment  of  the  moral 
worth  of  the  Bible,  it  be  taken  as  a  whole.  The  theory  of 
.all  who  receive  the  Old  and  New  Testaments  is  that  they 
belong  together,  are  so  to  be  interpreted;  that  one  is  the 
beginning,  and  the  other  the  conclusion,  of  the  one  Bible. 
The  one  begins  in  the  "  Laurentian  period,"  so  to  speak,  and 
follows  man  up  from  a  wild  nomad  to  wealth  and  empire, 
and  the  decay  of  empire;  the  moral  and  the  civil  law  blend- 
ing and  running  along  together  for  hundreds  of  years,  then 
separating  by  the  simple  explosion  of  the  civil  powers. 
The  other  takes  him  after  the  wounds  caused  by  the  explo- 
sion have  partly  healed,  and  puts  forth  mo/al  ideas  unen- 
cumbered by  any  considerations  of  the  state.  The  former 
gave  moral  laws  to  the  Jew;  the  latter  moral  laws  to 
the  man;  everything  from  first  to  last  going  on  as  nat- 
urally as  the  building  of  a  city,  or  the  growth  of  a  tree. 
And  common  sense  should  inquire  how  it  happens,  that, 
while  the  great  army  of  scholars  who  have  studied  these 
systems,  believers  and  skeptics  alike,  have  been  filled  with 
admiration,  a  man  rises  up  now  and  then  to  vituperate  the 
logic  of  events  and  malign  the  great  God  because  He  has 
not  chosen  to  plant  a  tree  with  the  branches  in  the  ground 
and  the  roots  in  the  air. 

Common  sense  naturally  asks  what  the  meaning  of  this 
bitter   outbreak   may   be.     We  have   no   right   to   men's 
motives.     But  this  is  a  phenomenon,  the  cause  of  which 
we  have  a  right  to  ask,  as  we  would  ask  the  cause  of  a  fall- 
ing meteor.     The  Bible  is  a  law  and  order  book.     It  teaches 
that  one  must  look  out  how  he  pulls  up  even  the  tares. 
j  Are  we  in  our  historic  orbit  passing  a  belt  of  niliilism,  a 
I  time  when  assassination  is  reform,  and  a  bad  shot  at  a  poor 

^ 


DR.  SWAZEY'S  11EPLT.  59 

czar,  inheriting  semi-barbarism  and  striving  with  all  his 
might  to  get  rid  of  the  inheritance,  is  to  be  lamented? 

You  may  bo  told  that  it  is  the  horrid  theology  of  the  \ 
Bible  which   provokes   assault.     Common    sense  remarks  \ 
that,  horrid  as  its  theology  may  be,  its  sterner  features  are    \ 
jnst  like  the  thco!    -v  of  nature,  namely,  a  demand  for 
obedience  to  law  a:.ii   "  the  survival  of  the  fittest."     It  is  J 
nature  put  into  language,  the  operation  of  moral  causes 
foretold — that  is  all.     If  you  want  a  government  more  just  "\ 
than  one  which  judges  a  man  according  to  his  deeds,  good 
or  bad,  and  takes  into  account  his  knowledge  and  oppor- 
tunities, why,  the  thing  to  do  is  to  rail  at  nature,  at  cause 
and  effect,  at  seed-time  and  harvest.     For  while  on  the 
better  side  the  Bible  theology   is  more  beneficent   than 
nature,  on  the  hard  side  it  is  simply  unmitigated  natural' 
law.     Do  the  theologians  preach  that  good  men  will  be 
•damned  ?     Then  rail   at  the  theologians,  and  not  at  the 
Bible. 

In  closing  this  short  article,  as  an  addendum,  let  me  ask 
a  question  or  two  for  the  benefit  of  all  who  have  a  bad 
opinion  of  the  Bible,  as  a  woman's  book  or  a  slave's  book. 

1.  Forget  the  harem  of  Solomon,  and  say  why  Judaism 
was  a  house  of  refuge  for  thousands  of  .Roman  and  Greek 
women,  many  of  them  of  noble  birth,  for  a  century  pre- 
ceding the  Christian  era  ? 

2.  In  the  same  line,  squarely,  has,  or  has  not,  the  mod- 
ern estate  of  woman  been  the  fruit  of  Christian  (including 
Judaic)  teaching? 

3.  Did  not  the  Bible  first  mitigate  and  finally  destroy 
slavery  in  the  Roman  empire  ? 

4.  Did  not  the  Bible  destroy  slavery  in  England  and 
America?     Charge  all  the  slave-driving  you  will  to  Chris- 
tian men,  and  give  any  unbeliever  all  he  claims,  and  then 
go  down  to  a  last  analysis. 


60  MISTAKES  OF  INGERSOLL. 

5.  Are  not  republican  institutions,  including  (as  the  old 
republics  did  not)  democratic  ideas,  directly  and  palpably 
the  fruit  of  the  teachings  of  that  remarkable  jVIan  (whom 
the  French  infidels  called  the  Great  Democrat);  whose 
Bible  was  the  Old  Testament,  and  who  told  His  followers 
how  to  amend  and  finish  it  by  a  book  called  the  New  Test- 
ament ? 

In  whatever  way  these  questions  may  be  answered,  the 
man  who  essays  to  answer  them  will  find  that  it  is  not  so 
easy  to  eliminate  the  genius  of  Moses  and  Jesus  from  the 
genius  of  the  world's  movement  toward  virtue,  equality  and 
liberty. 

TELL  the  Prince  that  this  (a  costly  copy  of  the  Bible)  is 
the  secret  of  England's  greatness. — Queen  Victoria. 

I  HAVE  always  said  and  always  will  say,  that  the  studious 
perusal  of  the  Sacred  Volume  will  make  better  citizens, 
better  fathers  and  better  husbands. — Thomas  Jefferson. 

THE  Bible  is  equally  adapted  to  the  wants  and  infirmi- 
ties of  every  human  being.  No  other  book  ever  addressed 
itself  so  authoritatively  and  so  pathetically  to  the  judgment 
and  moral  sense  of  mankind. — Chancellor  James  Kent. 

CHRIST  proved  that  He  was  the  Son  of  the  Eternal  by 
His  disregard  of  time.  All  His  doctrines  signify  only, 
and  the  same  tiling,  eternity. — Napoleon  Bonaparte. 

I  HAVE  read  the  Bible  morning,  noon  and  night,  and 
have  ever  since  been  the  happier  and  better  man  for  such 
reading. — Edward  Burke. 

I  DO  not  believe  human  society,  including  not  merely  a 
few  persons  in  any  state,  but  whole  masses  of  men,  ever 
has  attained,  or  ever  can  attain,  a  high  state  of  intelli- 
gence, virtue,  security,  liberty,  or  happiness  without  the 
Holy  Scriptures. —  William  H.  Seward. 


[  Photographed  by  Mekmder. ) 


DR.  COLLYE&a  REPLY. 


DR.  COLLYER'S  REPLY. 


Dr.  Collyer  Relates  a  Little  Story — A  Book  that  cost  Mr.  Ingersoll 

the  Governorship  cf  Illinois — The  Volume  Philosophically 

Considered — Heavy  Blows. 

I  HAVE  been  told  a  gentleman  went  to  see  Mr.  Ingersoll 
once,  when  he  lived  in  Peoria,  and  finding  a  fine  copy  of 
Voltaire  in  his  library,  said,  "  Pray,  Sir,  what  did  this  cost 
you?"  "  I  believe  it  cost  me  the  governorship  of  the  State 
of  Illinois,"  was  the  swift  and  pregnant  answer.  1  can  not 
but  recall  the  incident  as  he  stands  in  the  light  of  his  lec- 
ture. He  seems  to  be  saying,  '*  It  is  my  turn  now,  and  I 
will  do  what  I  can  to  square  the  account.  I  will  dethrone  / 
your  God  to-day  amid  peals  of  laughter;  blow  His  being 
down  the  wind  on  the  wings  of  my  epigrams.  I  have  those/ 
about  me  who  will  send  ray  words  flying  all  over  the  state. 
I  will  start  a  crusade  which  will  shut  up  your  churches 
some  day,  silence  your  immemorial  prayers,  slay  all  the 
hopes  that  would  strive  after  something  more  than  this 
momentary  gleam  between  the  eternities,  make  of  no 
account  the  grand  deep  truth  that  '  life  struck  sharp  on 
death  makes  awful  lightning,'  and  so  dwarf  our  human 
kind  that  when  we  get  man  where  we  want  him  he  shall 
never  again  be  able  to  look  over  the  low  billows  of  his  green 
graves,  and  end  the  fight  by  making  my  own  creed  good 
once,  for  all  that 

Man,  God's  last  work,  who  seemed  so  fair, 
Such  splendid  purpose  in  his  eyes, 
Who  rolled  the  psalms  in  wintry  skies, 

Who  built  him  fanes  for  fruitless  prayer, 


64  MISTAKES  OF  INGERSOLL. 

Who  trusted  God  was  love  indeed, 

And  love,  creation's  final  law ; 

Though  nature  red,  in  tooth  and  claw, 
With  raven,  shrieked  against  liis  creed ; 
Who  loved,  who  suffered  countless  ills, 

Who  biu  l led  for  the  true  and  just, 

Is  blown  about  the  desert  dust, 
And  sealed  within  the  iron  hills." 

Now,  since  we  first  knew  Mr.  Ingersoll  by  report,  there 
has  been  a  time  when  those  who  can  only  believe  in  God  as 
a  rather  helpless  little  brother,  by  no  means  able  to  take 
care  of  Himself,  and  in  themselves  as  big  brothers,  who 
are  bound  to  stand  up  for  Him,  might  have  felt  there  was 
grave  danger  in  such  a  sight  as  we  have  witnessed — of  a 
vast  array  of  men  and  women,  some  of  them  it  is  fair  to 
believe  of  a  thoughtful  turn,  assembled  to  hear  the  last  and 
best  word  which  can  be  said  why  God  should  be  dethroned, 
and  His  presence  and  providence  numbered  among  the 
things  that  seemed  true  enough  once,  but  pass  away  inevit- 
ably in  the  process  through  which  we  arise  from  "  our  dead 
selves  to  higher  things." 

Sparks  Flying  in   all   Directions — Singular   Mental  Phenomenon 
Occasioned  by  $25.000  a  Year. 

He  was  clothed  once  in  a  fine  austerity  5  went  on  his 
lonely  way  quite  content,  to  give  grave  and  serious  reasons 
for  rejecting  what  so  many  of  us  hold  dearer  than  our  life, 
and  was  faithful  to  his  instinct  and  insight,  though  such 
ovations  as  were  ever  given  him — as  Dr.  Dyer  used  to  say  of 
the  old  abolitionists — might  take  the  form  mainly  of  rotten 
eggs.  I  know  of  more  than  one  man,  who,  in  those  days, 
nourished  a  deep  and  most  tender  regard  for  him,  and 
found  something  noble  in  the  stand  he  made  for  the  best  a 
man  can  do  and  be,  who  has  to  abide  so  utterly  alone.  But 
Mr.  Ingersoll,  roystering  around  as  the  popular  advocate  of 


DR.  COLLYE&S  REPLY.  65 

atheism,  at  $25,000  a  year,  as  the  common  report  goes, 
is  quite  another  sort  of  a  man.  No  doubt  the  laborer  is 
worthy  of  his  hire.  Those  who  run  the  thing  may  be 
trusted  to  see  to  that,  and  a  good  many  of  us  who  stand 
on  the  other  side  may  not  be  much  better,  according  to 
the  old  proverb  that  it  is  "money  makes  the  mare  go." 
Still,  as  this  always  turns  the  fine  edge  of  our  endeavor, 
and  makes  us  weak  for  good  when  we  make  it  at  all  a 
matter  of  barter  and  sale,  so  it  must  be  with  Mr.  Inger- 
soll,  making  him  weak  for  what  I  can  not  but  believe  to 
be  evil.  lie  is  no  more  in  such  a  case  than  the  second 
batch  of  reformers  in  the  old  times,  who  argued  lustily 
for  a  reformation,  while  still  they  grew  rich  on  the  Church 
lands.  No  more  than  your  Archbishop,  in  the  Church  of 
England,  arguing  on  the  godliness  of  tythes  and  priestly 
authority.  So  Mr.  Ingersoll,  in  motley,  trying  to  laugh 
the  deepest  and  most  sacred  convictions  vof  men  down  the 
wind  under  the  guise  of  girding  at  the  Pentateuch  (for 
we  must  thank  him,  I  say  again,  for  the  frankness  with 
which  he  tells  us  this  is  his  ultimate  aim),  is  a  very  differ- 
ent man  to  the  quiet,  manful  fellow  we  used  to  hear  of  in 
Peoria  long  ago,  who  won  such  regard  from  those  who  could 
at  all  understand  him.  The  man  in  the  ring,  whose  sole 
business  it  is  to  make  you  laugh,  makes  no  converts  even  to 
rough  riding.  And  so  there  is  ground  for  neither  hope  nor 
fear,  as  we  stand  on  that  side  or  this,  about  the  advance  of 
atheism,  so  long  as  this  remains  as  the  best  method  of  its 
choicest  champions.  It  may  make  headway  with  such  men 
as  Yoltaire  had  to  handle,  and  in  such  times;  but  this 
eerious  and  deep  hearted  race  of  ours  never  did  take  to  this 
kind  of  thing,  and  never  will.  It  is  only  as  the  crackling 
of  the  thorns  under  a  pot. 

Nor  can  this  bitter  and  relentless  spirit  toward  those  who 
differ  help  the  advocates  of  atheism  any  more  than  it  doea 
5 


66  MISTAKES  OF  INOERSOLL. 

the  advocates  of  the  faith.  Robert  Southey  says,  in  a  letter 
to  Sharon  Turner,  touching  the  contentions  of  his  time 
between  the  sects,  k'  When  I  hear  the  dissenters  talk  about 
Churchmen,  I  feel  like  a  very  high  Churchman  myself;  but 
when  I  hear  Churchmen  talk  about  dissenters,  I  feel  that  I 
am  a  dissenter,  too."  It  was  but  the  bias  of  a  nature,  in 
which  the  balances  were  still  true,  in  favor  of  the  side  which 
was  dealt  with  most  unfairly.  The  plea  in  the  mind  of  one 
who  could  look  on  botli  sides  with  a  calm  concern,  that  the 
result  of  fighting  over  the  lamp  should  not  be  to  put  out  the 
light,  or  of  contending  over  the  nature  and  properties  of  the 
spring  to  soil  the  water  so  that  no  one  could  drink  at  it,  be  he 
ever  so  athirst.  Lord  Bacon  says,  "  there  is  a  superstition 
in  avoiding  superstition,  when  those  think  they  do  best  who 
go  farthest;  but  care  should  be  taken  that  the  good  should 
not  be  purged  away  with  the  bad,  which  commonly  happens 
when  this  is  the  method.5'  So  I  think  it  must  be  with  such 
violent  and  utter  denunciation  as  this,  which  lies  within 
the  spirit  of  Mr.  Ingersoll's  address.  It  has  pleased  a  very 
bright  and  able  man  in  our  ranks  to  fall  into  accord  with 
him  in  many  things  he  has  to  say,  and  to  show  how  we 
also  hold  this  ground.  I  may  be  old-fashioned,  and  unfit 
for  a  fair  judgment,  but  I  am  very  much  of  Southey5s  mind, 
and  when  I  hear  orthodoxy  denounced  in  such  a  spirit,  I 
say  I  agree  with  Mr.  Ingersoll  nowhere.  Here  is  bigotry 
of  a  new  shape,  denouncing  bigots:  and  I  sway  to  the  other 
side  for  very  charity,  and  the  desire  that  the  most  good  pos- 
sible should  be  found  in  any  evil,  and  especially  that  one 
should  think  as  well  as  possible  of  those  who  can  not  see  as 
we  do,  but  are  still  of  as  fine  and  clear  a  grain,  and  show 
as  noble  a  soul  of  self-sacrifice — that  uttermost  and  inner- 
most proof  a  man  can  give  that  he  believes  he  is  right. 


DR.  COLLY ER  8  REPLY.  67 

The  Clear  Ring  of  Truth  vs.  the  Dull  Thud  of  the  Baser  Metal 

— Potency  of  Simple  Statement — The  Doctor's  Objections 

to  Ingersoll's  Talk. 

Now,  a  man  who  seeks  and  loves  the  truth,  must  be 
esteemed  in  every  human  society;  but  so  far  as  my  own 
observation  goes,  the  most  of  our  fights  and  contentions 
carried  on  in  such  a  spirit  as  this  I  am  trying  to  touch, 
end  in  vast  clouds  of  dust  and  smoke,  in  which  the  clear, 
shining  sun  of  the  truth  turns  blood-red  to  our  human 
vision.  And  those  who,  even  with  the  best  intentions,  are 
forever  going  about,  as  we  say,  with  a  chip  on  their  shoul- 
der, are  likely  in  the  end  to  be  voted  a  common  nuisance. 
The  truth  must  be  told,  no  matter  who  gets  hurt;  the 
truth,  or  even  semblance  of  the  truth,  which  smites  the 
man  who  tells  it,  and  moves  his  heart  so  that  he  has  to  cry 
"  Woe  is  me  if  I  preach  not  this  Gospel  !"  But  the  truth 
etill  comes  to  us  through  clear  and  simple  statements  which 
tell  their  own  story,  rather  than  through  denial,  denuncia- 
tion, satire,  slang,  and  appeals  to  the  top-gallery.  So 
Channing  thought,  and  the  result  is,  that  his  best  sermons 
are  simply  statements  of  the  truth  as  it  had  come  home  to 
his  own  heart  and  mind.  So  Parker  thought,  and  reading 
his  life  again,  just  now,  I  find  there  is  nothing  the  man 
longed  for  so  much  as  that  he  might  be  quiet,  and  just  let 
the  truth  dome  itself  in  his  great  fine  heart  and  brain,  while 
he  regrets  bitterly  the  evil  times  that  compelled  him  to 
take  to  other  methods;  and  the  best  work  he  ever  did  for 
the  deep,  still  truth,  are  statements.  So  John  Wesley 
thought,  when  once  he  struck  his  shining  path  from  earth 
to  heaven,  and  his  sermons  from  1740  to  1780,  are  simply 
statements  of  the  ever-growing  and  ever-brightening  truth 
God  is  revealing  to  man.  And  so  even  Calvin  thought, 
and  his  earliest  and  best  utterances  are  still  statements, 


grim,  hard,  iron-clinched,  but  all  the  same  the  stern  and 


ices 
tTie 


68  MISTAKES  OF  INGERSOLL. 

inexorable  affirmation,  made  good  for  all  time,  that  neither 
priest  nor  Pope  can  play  fast  and  loose  with  the  Most  High 
God.  Always  you  find  the  greatest  and  best  men  when 
they  themselves  are  at  their  best  making  statements,  exactly 
as  Jesus  does  in  the  sermon  on  the  mount.  Saying  what 
is  in  them  simply  and  sincerely,  feeling  sure,  as  Coleridge 
says,  that  "  no  authority  can  ever  prevail  in  opposition  to 
the  truth."  So  Columbus  holds  himself  before  the  Council 
of  Salamanca,  when  a  new  world  is  in  debate.  So  Stephen- 
son  holds  himself  before  the  House  of  Lords,  when  he  has 
to  answer  for  his  locomotive.  So  Newton  affirms  his  dis- 
covery of  the  law  of  gravitation  ;  and  Harvey,  that  of  the 
circulation  of  the  blood.  That  is  the  law  of  all  truth-tell- 
ing in  its  noblest  and  best  shape,  and  then  the  contention, 
if  there  is  one,  is  simply  the  hiss,  as  Stebbins,  of  California, 
said  once,  when  he  was  speaking  in  defence  of  the  Chinese, 
"  is  simply  the  hiss  the  white-hot  truth  makes  when  it 
strikes  the  black  waters  of  hell." 

Here,  then,  is  my  radical  objection  to  Mr.  Ingersoll's 
talk,  apart  from  his  final  aim.  It  is  conceived  and  done  in 
a  narrow  and  most  bigoted  spirit,  by  one  who  claims,  above 
all  things  in  the  world,  to  be  free  from  bigotry.  The  men 
of  whom  he  speaks  so  unworthily  are,  take  them  by  and 
large,  worthy  men.  The  things  in  the  five  books  of  Moses, 
so  called,  on  which  the  fathers  based  their  creeds,  are 
rapidly  passing  into  worthier  meanings;  and  the  day  is  not 
far  distant  when  the  old  belief  will  have  rotted  down,  and 
be  as  when  an  old  tree  rots,  to  become  the  nursing  mother 
of  a  bed  of  violets.  No  man  believes  in  such  things  any 
more,  who  has  read  and  thought  to  any  purpose;  and  the 
man  who  has  not  done  this,  had  far  better  believe  in  the 
six  days'  work  and  one  day's  rest,  rib,  serpent,  fall,  flood, 
ark,  manna,  and  all  the,  rest  of  those  wonders,  than  in  Mr. 
Ingersoll's  enormous  and  most  fatal  negation  of  God. 


DR.  COLL  YE R  8  REPLY.  69 

Putting    the    Fine    Edge    on    Orthodoxy — Taking    a    Weld   with 
Prof.  Swing  and  Dr.  Thomas — Borax  and  Bigotry. 

Nor  is  that  bad  and  bitter  spirit  in  orthodoxy  now  which 
once  found  utterance  in  fire  and  the  axe,  as  it  did  in  far 
more  ruthless  ways  in  atheism  when  the  goddess  of  Rea- 
son was  the  divinity  of  France.  Orthodoxy,  in  a  free-spoken 
land  like  ours,  is  very  civil,  indeed,  and  timid,  as  I  think, 
almost  to  a  fault,  showing  just  the  spirit  which  is  nof  sure 
the  ground  may  not  slip  from  under  it  any  moment;  and 
so  far  as  its  finest  leaders  go  edging  away  from  the  rocking 
base,  as  fast  and  as  far  the  people  for  whom  those  men  h:i  ve 
to  care  will  follow.  Nothing  could  be  more  gentle  than 
the  way  orthodoxy  used  Brother  Swing.  He  was  no  more 
orthodox  than  you  are.  He  might  not  think  so,  but  that's 
the  truth,  patent  to  the  whole  world.  Yet  the  church  to 
which  he  was  preaching,  and  the  old  standbys,  as  we  call 
them,  said,  "  This  is  what  we  are  here  for,  and  have  laid 
out  our  money  and  time  for,  and,  if  you  go  back  far 
enough,  it.  is  what  our  fathers  shed  their  blood  for.  Dr. 
Swing  must  be  true  to  his  ancient  vows,  or  leave."  If  Mr. 
Ingersoll  should  ever  lay  out  his  money,  and  those  of  his 
mind  put  theirs  to  it,  to  build  a  great  hall  in  "Washington 
or  Chicago  for  the  propagation  of  atheism,  and  employ  a 
man  to  preach  to  them,  and  then  if  this  man  should  depart 
as  far  backward  from  their  way  of  thinking  as  Brother 
Swing  departed  forward  from  that  of  the  Presbyterians, 
they  will  be  much  more  catholic  and  inclusive  than  I  think 
they  are  if  they  use  that  man  as  gently. 

I  do  not  mention  this  for  proof  of  my  word  that  ortho- 
doxy is  getting  to  be  very  civil — indeed,  gentle,  timid,  and 
even  wanting  in  a  proper  courage  to  take  care  of  its  own 
household,  if  we  are  to  judge  from  the  half-and-half  meas- 
ures they  are  taking  with  Mr.  Talmadge,  in  Brooklyn,  and 
the  way  in  which  they  let  him  smite  them  on  the  mouth. 


70  MISTAKES  OF  INOERSOLL. 

Orthodoxy  has  exchanged  the  old  fetters  of  iron  for  silken 
bands  with  an  elastic  base.  Brother  Thomas,  my  dear  and 
good  friend,  has  no  right  to  preach  in  a  Methodist  pulpit, 
and  in  the  days  I  remember,  would  not  have  preached  in 
one  to  this  time.  There  must  be  a  certain  concert  of  opin- 
ion, capable  of  being  brought  within  fair  lines,  or  nobody 
would  organize  or  hold  anything.  This  is  the  secret  of  our 
most  happy  relation  through  all  these  years  in  this  church. 
We  hold  together  through  a  large,  free,  common  opinion 
about  certain  grand  verities.  I  should  injure  my  own 
nature  if  I  went  over  those  lines.  Yet  mm  are  continually 
going  over  them  in  the  orthodox  churches.  But  they  bear 
and  forbear,  scold  a  little,  fret  a  good  deal,  and  trust  the 
brother  may  see  things  different  presently  or  depart  in 
peace,  and  then,  when  there  is  no  help  for  it,  they  lift  him 
very  gently  out  of  the  fold. 

Nor  is  the  scorn  Mr.  Ingersoll  pours  out  on  these  ancient 
books  befitting  any  man  who  could  feel  his  way  to  their 
heart,  apart  from  any  theory  of  inspiration  or  the  use  made 
of  them  to  hinder  human  progress.  It  is  the  spirit  of  the 
Caliph  he  shows,  who,  when  the  question  came  up  what 
should  be  done  with  a  superb  library,  said,  "Burn  it;  what- 
ever is  against  the  Koran  ought  to  be  burnt,  and  whatever 
agrees  with  the  Koran  is  not  needed."  "With  some  such 
narrow  vision  he  would  judge  these  venerable  monuments 
of  the  most  ancient  time;  make  an  end  of  them  to  human 
credence;  get  them  branded  for  worthless  in  the  interests 
of  human  reason;  and  order  himself  toward  them  as  if  an 
iconoclast,  looking  over  the  treasures  of  the  Louvre,  should 
note  only  what  is  grotesque  or  painful,  while  ho  missed 
what  is  most  beautiful  and  entrancing,  tumble  the  whole 
into  a  heap,  and  burn  it  into  ashes  and  lime.  Men  have 
misused  these  books,  there  can  be  no  doubt  of  that,  and 
turned  some  parts  of  them  into  bane,  which,  well  used, 


DR.  COLL7ERS  REPLY.  71 

might  bring  blessing.  So  they  tell  me,  there  is  no  place 
that  can  match  Peoria  in  its  power  to  tnrn  good  grain  into 
whisky;  therefore,  shovel  Peoria  into  the  river,  and  leave 
the  smiling  prairies  where  the  grain  grows,  a  waste. 

Nothing  in  the  world  shows  a  man  s  limitations  so  fatally 
as  the  play  of  this  power  which  can  not  or  will  not  distin- 
guish between  the  use  and  the  abuse  of  things,  or  will  over- 
look the  abiding  good  because  of  the  transient  evil.  We 
tolerate  it  easily  in  the  child  who  turns  in  wrath  on  the 
chair  against  which  he  has  bruised  himself;  we  look  twice 
at  the  man  wrho  does  this,  and  then  draw  our  own  conclu- 
sion. I  have  been  told,  on  good  authority,  that  Mr.  Inger- 
soll,  in  his  childhood  and  his  early  youth,  did  get  badly 
bruised  against  these  books.  Well,  the  books  have  to  take 
it  now;  but  is  this  the  sign  of  a  large  and  a  gracious  mind? 
One  would  think  he  might  have  gotten  over  it  before  this, 
and  come  to  understand  them  better  than  mere  instruments 
of  hurt.  I  can  agree  in  nothing  touching  the  Bible  and 
the  soul's  life  with- the  man  who  tells  me  his  aim  is  to 
damage  or  destroy  the  faith  of  man  in  God,  to  the  best  of 
his  ability;  but  if  this  was  out  of  the  way,  one  might  not 
object  to  his  antagonism  to  the  misuse  of  Moses  by  those 
•who  think  they  do  God  service.  Still,  in  any  case,  I  find 
too  much  beauty  in  the  books  to  allow  me  to  touch  them 
with  irreverent  hands.  They  arc  simply  above  all  stand- 
ards of  value,  with  which  I  measure  other  books  outside  the 
Scriptures,  in  the  revelation  they  make  to  me  of  the  way 
men  felt  their  way  toward  a  sure  faith  in  God  in  those  old 
times,  and  so  grew,  in  many  instances,  to  be  very  noble  and 
good  at  last,  and,  as  I  have  said,  of  the  way  in  which  they 
tried  to  account  for  this  wonderful  and  mysterious  universe 
in  which  they  found  themselves  when  they  had  "learned 
the  use  of  I  and  me,  and  said  '  I  am  not  what  I  see,  and 
other  than  the  things  I  touch.'  "  Nor  would  I  lose  one  of 


72  MISTAKES  OF  1XGERSOLL. 

the  wonders.     They  all  tell  us  something  we  want  to  know 
about  the  working  of  the  human  mind. 

That  is  a  very  poor  and  rude  matter  I  treasure  in  my 
study;  a  broken  vase  of  gray  clay,  with  a  few  fishbone 
marks  on  it;  but  if  there  was  not  .another  of  them  in  the 
world  I  would  not  exchange  it  for  the  Portland  vase,  for 
this  reason:  That  on  a  day,  so  remote  I  can  not  strike  it, 
some  poor  savage  made  that  vase  in  my  little  town,  to  hold 
the  dust  of  some  one  dear  to  him,  put  those  marks  on  it  for 
a  token  of  what  was  in  his  mind,  and  then  made  a  little 
vault  and  hid  it  away  until  the  sun  of  this  century  should 
shine  on  it,  and  when  I  hold  that  vase,  I  find  a  trace  of  the 
man  who  had  else  been  lost.  There  is  the  faint  beat  of  a 
human  heart  lingering  in  the  clay,  and  a  dim  remembrance 
of  tears,  and  the  marks,  and  as  if  they  should  open  my  grave 
two  thousand  years  from  now,  and  find  the  white  cross  still 
fresh  on  my  coffin,  and  say,  "Tender,  loving  hands  laid 
that  there,  let  us  deal  with  it  tenderly."  These  rude  and 
half-shapen  things  in  the  old  books  are  the  clue  to  the  man 
who  made  them,  and  how  he  felt,  and  what  he  thought. 
I  would  not  spare  the  least  letter  out  of  them,  but  would 
scan  them  in  all  reverence,  let  who  will  scorn  them.  They 
all  belong  to  our  human  history,  and  it  is  only  their  mis- 
fortune they  have  ever  been  misused.  They  are  included 
in  the  saying  of  the  great  and  wise  German,  that  the  Bible 
begins  nobly  with  Paradise,  the  symbol  of  Faith,  and  con- 
cludes with  the  eternal  kingdom ;  and  with  the  grand,  sweet 
word  of  Thomas  Carlyle:  "in  the  poorest  cottage  there  i& 
one  book  wherein,  for  thousands  of  years,  the  spirit  of  man 
has  found  light  and  nourishment,  and  an  interpreting 
response  to  whatever  is  deepest  in  him.  The  Book 
•wherein  to  this  day  the  eye  that  will  look  well,  the  mystery 
of  existence  reflects  itself,  and  if  not  to  the  satisfying  of 

\     the  outward  sense,  yet  to  the  opening  of  the  inward  sense, 

\jwrhich  is  the  far  grander  result." 


DR.  COLLYE&S  REPLY.  73 

A   Touching  Illustration — Eloquence    and    Truth — Havelock's 

Saints. 

Of  the  doctrine  advanced  by  Mr.  Ingeraoll,  and  his  pur- 
pose to  have  done  with  the  God  Jesus  believed  in,  and 
show  reason  why  we  should  have  done  with  Him,  there  is 
nothing  to  say  if  I  have  not  said  it  steadily  these  many 
years.  A  remark  of  Charles  Hare  strikes  me  forcibly  as  I 
read  the  few  words  that  are  said  on  this  matter,  in  the 
address,  "There  is  no  being  eloquent  for  atheism.  In  that 
exhausted  receiver  the  mind  can  not  use  its  wings — the 
clearest  proof  that  it  is  out  of  its  element."  For  when  I 
consider  how  eloquent  Mr.  lugersoll  has  been  at  times,  and 
the  moving  cause  of  it,  I  can  see  that  he  also  must  answer 
to  this  law.  He  never  said  grander  words  than  those  about 
our  boys,  their  mighty  heart,  and  utter  self-sacrifice,  for  the 
noblest  ends.  But  there  never  was  anything  done  since 
the  world  stood,  in  which  the  presence  of  God  could  be 
traced,  and  his  power  felt  more  clearly,  nor  did  ever  men 
make  such  sacrifice  with  a  devouter  sense  that  God  wa& 
within  it  all,  than  those  most  worthy  his  grand  and  touch- 
ing eulogium.  "  Call  out  Havelock's  saints,"  Sir  Archi- 
bald Campbell  shouted,  when  hope  was  almost  dead  in  the 
great  Sepoy  rebellion  in  India.  Something  must  be  done,, 
and  done  on  the  swift  instant,  or  there  would  be  more  woful 
(work  among  the  women  and  children.  Call  out  Havelock's 
saints,  they  are  sure  to  be  ready,  and  they  are  never  drunk. 
They  were  of  the  sort  that  carry  a  Bible  in  their  knapsack,, 
and  turn  to  chapter  and  verse,  and  sing  psalms  from  old 
Rouse's  version  to  Dundee  and  Elgin,  and  the  Martyrs, 
and  nourish  their  hearts  on  stories  of  the  way  stout  battles 
were  fought  and  grand  martyrdoms  endured  for  God  among 
the  moors.  Call  out  Havelock's  saints,  they  are  always 
ready,  and  never  get  drunk,  and  they  do  fight  like  the  very 
angels.  They  were  but  the  brothers  of  the  great,  simple 


74  MISTAKES  OF  INGERSOLL. 

eouls  who  fought  at  Ball's  Bluff,  and  in  scores  of  battles 
beside,  while  mothers  and  sisters  did  the  praying  for  the 
moment,  for  they  had  no  time  except  just  to  look  up  and 
liear  that  voice  in  the  heart  say,  "  Steady,  my  boy,  steady, 
jou  are  of  a  grand  stock,  you  must  tell  a  grand  story. 
And  they  told  it,  and  at  the  heart  of  it  all  was  God,  and  a 
new  life  for  the  nation,  and  in  time  a  new  civilization  that 
shall  shed  its  blessing  on  the  whole  waiting  world. 

Ltheism — Not  an  Institution  but  a  "  Destitution !" — The  True  Life. 

I  have  no  stones  to  throw  at  atheism  any  more  than  I 
have  stones  to  throw  at  blindness.  It  can  never  be  more 
than  a  very  sore  and  sad  limitation,  not  an  institution,  but 

destitution.  This  Anglo-Saxon  nature  is  not  good  soil 
for  it:  no  arguments  can  make  it  take  hold  and  grow  in  us 
any  more  than  arguments  can  make  roses  take  hold  and 
grow  on  Aberdeen  granite.  !NTor  have  I  any  exhortation 
save  this:  That  as  we  stand  as  pioneers  of  the  noblest  and 
fairest  faith  we  can  reach,  a  faith  which  throws  no  strands 
to  stay  itself  on  the  fall,  or  the  flood,  or  the  manna,  or  the 
.sun,  standing  still,  or  any  of  these  old  wonders,  but  just 
fronts  the  light  and  drinks  it  in,  we  shall  grow  ever  more 
worthy  to  prove  God's  presence  in  the  world,  by  revealing 
it  in  our  life,  and  in  the  work  he  has  given  us  to  do.  There 
is  no  argument  like  that  which  lies  within  a  sweet  and  true 
life  which  looks  to  God  forever  for  its  inspiration  and  its 
joy.  Let  us  be  right  worthy  of  our  faith. 

/Then  shall  this  Western  Goth, 
/  Bo  fiercely  practical,  so  kecu  of  eye, 
Find  out  some  day  that  nothing  pays  but  God. 
Served  whether  in  the  smoke  of  battle  field, 
In  work  obscure  done  honestly — or  vote 
For  truth  unpopular — or  faith  maintained, 
To  ruinous  convictions — or  good  deeds, 
Wrought  for  good's  sake,  heedless  of  heaven  or  helL 


FRED.  PERRY  POWERS'  REPLY.  75 


FRED.  PERKY  POWERS'  REPLY. 


The  Sinaitic  Code  —  Solvent  Powers  of  the  Historic  Method  — 
Graphic  Illustration  of  the  Two  Schools. 

CHRISTIANITY,  like  a  fortress  on  an  open  plain,  is  liable  to 
attack  from  opposite  directions.  But  it  is  well  for  the  at- 
tacking parties  to  remember  that  columns  of  argument  do 
not,  like  columns  of  soldiers,  co-operate  when  moving  in 
opposite  directions.  Christianity  is  not  to  be  disposed  of 
by  proving  that  at  the  same  time  it  is  and  is  not  a  certain 
thing. 

The  "  historic  method,"  like  every  new  journal,  seems 
"to  meet  a  long-felt  want."  It  has  been  clutched  greed- 
ily and  employed  in  every  conceivable  shape.  It  proves  not 
only  that  whatever  is  is  right,  but  that  whatever  was  was 
right,  and  whatever  will  be  will  be  right.  It  has  been  car- 
ried to  a  point  where  it  undermines  personal  responsibility, 
and  with  it  Mr.  Herbert  Spencer,  in  the  conclusion  of  his 
Sociology,  enjoins  the  reformer  and  the  philanthropist  from 
activity.  It  eliminates  ethical  considerations  from  the 
mind  of  the  historian.  It  closes  the  eyes  of  society  to  the 
vices  of  its  members,  and  it  lays  its  hand  upon  the  mouth  of 
the  judge  be  fore  whom  stands  a  man  who,  as  the  result  of 
antecedents,  and  in  the  natural  effort  to  harmonize  himself 
with  his  environment,  has  committed  murder. 

Now,  it  is  a  little  singular  that  this  invaluable  historic 
method  should  be  a  legitimate  weapon  against  the  church, 
but  an  illegitimate  weapon  for  the  church.  If  the  church 
is  to  be  allowed  to  use  this  weapon  freely  it  will  have  no 


76  MISTAKES  OF  INGERSOLL. 

/difficulty  in  making  a  perfect  defense  for  itself,  its  predeces- 
I  sor  and  all  of  its  members,  no  matter  how  wild  or  wicked. 
\The  historic  method  is  a  solvent  in  which  the  inqui- 
sition disappears,  and  which  at  once  removes  those  spots  on 
the  robe  of  religions  history,  the  wars  and  massacres  of  the 
Israelites.  I  have  no  disposition  to  make  any  such  exten- 
sive use  of  the  historic  method  as  this.  But  all  matters  of 
history  are  to  be  studied  as  historical,  not  as  contempora- 
neous. And  it  is  in  the  last  degree  uncandid  for  the  oppo- 
nents of  Christianity  to  make  the  extremest  use  of  the  his- 
toric method  when  it  suits  their  purpose,  and  then,  in 
dealing  with  religions  history,  eliminate  ordinary  historic 
perspective.  In  this  latter  particular  the  enemies  of  the 
church  are  not  alone.  The  Reformation  brought  in  a  re- 
vival of  Judaism,  and  a  large  section  of  Protestant  Chris- 
tianity resolutely  closes  its  eyes  to  the  fact  that  the  Mosaic 
dispensation  was  given  several  thousand  years  ago,  and  to  a 
nace  wholly  different  in  its  position  from  any  now  existing. 
The  Mosaic  dispensation  is  not  the  only  thing  treated  in 
/this  way.  The  directions  given  by  St.  Paul  to  a  particular 
/church  at  a  particular  date  are  constantly  appealed  to  in 
/  the  churches  as  universal  law,  applicable  to  all  churches 
and  throughout  all  ages.  If  a  picture  with  a  man  in  the 
foreground  and  an  elephant  in  the  background  were  shown 
to  two  savages,  one  of  whom  knew  something  about  ele- 
phants, and  the  other  of  whom  did  not,  the  former  would 
insist  upon  it  that  the  artist  was  a  ignoramus  for  painting 
an  elephant  smaller  than  a  man,  and  the  other  would  con- 
clude that  man  was  a  larger  animal  than  an  elephant,  bc~ 
cause  lie  appeared  so  in  the  picture.  The  former  repre- 
sents a  school  of  atheists  who  attack  the  ethics  of  the  Sina- 
itic  code,  and  the  latter  represents  a  school  of  devout  be- 
lievers who,  receiving  the  Sinaitic  code  as  a  matter  of  rev- 
elation, feel  compelled  to  defend  it  as  the  truth  and  noth- 


FRED.  PERRT  POWERS'  REPLY.  77 

ing  but  the  truth,  and  the  truth  for  all  times  and  all  places. 
It  is  worth  while  to  remember  at  the  very  outset  what  both 
parties  to  the  war  waged  over  the  ethics  of  the  Pentateuch 
seem  disposed  to  ignore,  that  what  are  now  denounced  as 
the  errors  of  the  Sinaitic  code  were  pointed  out  more  than 
eighteen  hundred  years  ago  by  the  highest  authority  rec- 
ognized by  the  Christian  world. 

In  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount  Jesus  Christ  used  the  fol- 
lowing language: 

Te  have  heard  that  it  hath  been  said,  an  eye  for  an  eye,  and  a  tooth  for 
a  toelh.  But  I  say  unto  you,  That  ye  resist  not  evil ;  but  whosoever 
shall  smite  thee  on  thy  right  cheek,  turn  to  him  the  other,  also. — Matt 
y.,  33,  89. 

The  lex  talionis,  here  repudiated,  was  not  a  rabbinical 
interpolation;  it  was  an  integral  maxim  of  the  Sinaitic  code, 
as  the  following  words,  coming  shortly  after  the  Deca- 
logue, show: 

And  if  any  mischief  follows,  then  thou  shalt  give  life  for  life,  eye  for 
\jsye,  tooth  for  tootli,  hand  for  han  1,  foot  for  foot,  burning  for  burning, 
wound  for  wound,  stripe  for  stripe. — Exodus  xxi.,  23-25. 

Free  divorce  was  another  Sinaitic  error,  so  called,  and  in 
pointing  it  out  Christ  gave  us  the  key  to  the  whole  "Mosaic 
dispensation,  as  the  following  passage  shows: 

The  Pharisees  also  came  unto  Him,  tempting  Him,  and  saying  unto 
Him,  Is  it  lawful  for  a  man  to  put  away  his  wife  for  every  cause  ? 
And  He  answered  and  said  unto  them,  Have  ye  not  read  that  lie  which 
made  them  at  the  beginning  made  them  male  and  female,  and  said,  for 
this  cause  shall  a  man  leave  father  and  mother  and  shall  cleave  to  his 
wife,  and  they  twain  shall  be  one  flesh  ?    Wherefore  they  are  no  more 
twain,  but  one  flesh.    What,  therefore,  God  hath  joined  together,  let  no 
man  put  asunder.    They  say  unto  Him,  Why  did  Moses  then  command 
Ao  give  a  writing  of  divorcement,  and  to  put  her  away  ?  He  saith  unto 
/  them,  Moses,  because  of  the  hardness  of  your  hearts,  suffered  you  to  put 
/  away  your  wives ;  but  from  the  beginning  it  was  not  so.    And  I  say 
I    unto  you,  Whosoever  shall  put  away  his  wife,  except  it  be  for  fornica- 
tion, and  shall  marry  another,  committeth  adultery;  and  whoso  marri- 
eth  her  which  he  put  away  doth  commit  adultery. — Matt,  xix.,  8-9. 


78  MISTAKES  OF  INGERSOLL 


Divine  Adjustment  of  the  Moral  Law  —  Progressive  Elimination. 
of  Polygamy,  Slavery,  Etc. — Mount  Sinai  and  Mount  Calvary. 

The  "hardness  of  heart"  referred  to  is  evidently  the 
dullness  of  the  intellectual  and  moral  sense  that  character- 
ized the  almost  savage  slaves  of  the  Egyptians  when  they 
came  up  out  of  Egypt.  Instead  of  imposing  on  them  an 
ethical  system  perfectly  complete  and  perfectly  unintelligi- 
ble to  them  in  their  degraded  condition,  Moses,  under  di- 
rection of  divine  wisdom,  gave  them  a  moral  law  which 
they  could  understand,  and  which  would  develop  in  them  a 
capacity  for  something  purer  and  higher. 

Polygamy  was  tolerated,  not  because  it  was  the  ideal 
system;  not  because  the  deity  of  the  Hebrews  could  devise 
/no  other,  but  because  polygamy  is  the  natural  intermedi- 
ate station  between  promiscuity  and  monogamy.  God 
'  chose  to  make  a  civilized  people  out  of  ,the  Jews,  not  by 
His  creative  fiat,  but  by  operating  .through  natural  laws  of 
sociology.  Indue  time,  when" "men  were  prepared  for  it, 
the  law  of  permanent  and  monogamous  marriage  was  pro- 
mulgated, but  it  was  in  advance  of  public  sentiment,  as  is 
shown  by  the  fact  that  when  Christ,  in  the  passage  above 
quoted,  forbade  free  divorce,  and  proclaimed  the  sanctity  of 
the  marital  relation,  the  disciples  suggested  that  if  that 
was  the  law  it  was  better  not  to  marry. 

So  slavery  was  tolerated  under  the  Mosaic  law.  But  ser- 
vitude for  a  short  term  of  years  was  substituted  for  per- 
manent and  hereditary  servitude,  and  the  law  threw  some 
protection  about  the  person  of  the  slave.  The  Mosaic  dis- 
pensation is  not  responsible  for  a  defense  of  slavery.  It 
tolerated  an  intermediate  state  between  barbarism  and  civ- 
ilization. 

A  fact  of  vast  importance  to  notice  is  that  this  Mosaic 
system  contained  within  itself  the  seeds  which,  when 


FRED.  PERRY  POWERS'  REPLY.  79> 

humanity  had  outgrown  the  old  dispensation,  would  mature- 
into  a  new  dispensation  so  far  in  advance  of  human  attain- 
ments, that  after  nearly  nineteen  centuries  the  human  race 
has  not  begun  to  catch  upon  it.     Christ  expounded  the  Old 
Testament  references  to  Himself,  beginning  with  Moses 
"When  Sinai  had  reduced  society  to  order,  and  stamped 
paganism,  then  Calvary  came  and  appealed  to  all  that  was 
highest  and  purest  in  man.     Even  at  this  late  day  there, 
are  not  many  souls  that  really  comprehend  the  full  meaning 
of  Calvary  and   whose  lives  give  evidence  of  that   factX 
When  any  considerable  portion  of  the  human  race  has-  ] 
received  all  that  Calvary  can  confer,  a  new  dispensatiojoy 
may  be  expected. 

In  this  sense  the  Mosaic  dispensation  was  perfect  and 
complete.  As  promulgated  on  Mount  Sinai,  it  was  adapted 
only  to  a  certain  low  condition  of  mankind.  But  it  contained 
a  vital  principle,  which  enabled  it  to  expand  as  fast  as 
civilization  advanced.  Starting  with  the  Decalogue,  it 
developed  the  penitential  psalms  and  the  noble  exhortar 
tions  of  the  prophets,  and  finally  the  Beatitudes.  Begin-\ 
ning  with  a  catalogue  of  penalties,  it  in  course  of  time\ 
developed  sorrow  for  sin,  and  at  last  that  love  to  God  which*  \ 
withholds  from  sin.  This  system  of  religion  has  developed./ 
faster  than  civilization  has  advanced.  The  Israelites  at  the 
foot  of  Mount  Sinai  probably  knew  something  of  the  wrong- 
fulness  of  murder,  theft  and  adultery.  But,  to-day,  in 
spite  of  great  moral  advances — to-day,  nineteen  centuries 
after  Christ — how  much  does  the  human  race  really  know 
about  "  hungering  and  thirsting  after  righteousness?  "  Let 
the  foolish  declaration  that  we  have  outgrown  Christianity 
come  from  those  who  have  been  filled,  and  who  still  want 
something  more. 

The  Decalogue  is  by  no  means  the  complete  moral  code 
that  it  is  often  represented  to  be,  and  it  would  be  singularly 


SO  MISTAKES  OF  INOERSOLL. 

Out  of  place  in  a  Christian  church  were  it  not  that,  even 
to-day,  and  in  the  United  States,  there  are  many  persons 
/  incapable  of  comprehending  the  Beatitudes  which  compre- 
hend all  there  is  in  the  Decalogue,  and  vastly  more.     The 
seventh   command  meat   does   not   apply   to   crimes,  both 
participants  in  which  are  unmarried,  and  the  Mosaic  law 
treated  the  seduction  of  an  unbetrothed  bondmaid  as  a 
trivial  offense,  sufficiently  atoned  for  by  the  sacrifice  of  a 
/ram.     The  seduction  of  a  free  maid,  if  she  was  not  be- 
/  trothed,  was  atoned  for  by  marriage.     It  was  on  account 
\  of  the  "  hardness  of  their  hearts,"  their  infancy  in  ethics, 
that  this  easy-going  statute  regarding  the  sexes  was  enacted. 
But  Christ  said  : 

Ye  have  heard  that  it  was  said  of  them  of  old  time,  "  Thou  shalt  not 
commit  adultery;"  but  I  say  unto  you,  That  whosoever  looketh  on  a 
woman  to  lust  after  her  hath  committed  adultery  with  her  already  in* 
Ms  heart.— Matt,  v.,  27,  28. 

The  Decalogue  said,  "  Thou  shalt  not  kill,"  but  Jesus 
Christ  added  to  this  as  follows  : 

Whosoever  is  angry  with  his  brother  without  a  cause  shall  be  in  dan 
ger  of  the  judgment. — Matt,  v.,  22. 

The  Decalogue  forbade  the  bearing  of  false  witness;  it 
was  silent  as  to  ordinary  mendacity.  In  the  New  Testa- 
ment this  law  is  extended  to  cover  all  untruthfulness. 

Purpose  and  Potency  of  the  Mosaic  Law. 

The  purpose  of  the  Mosaic  law  was  to  start  the  Israelites 
on  the  path  of  spiritual  enlightenment.  It  was  a  provi- 

(sional  system,  superseded  at  the  right  time  by  Christianity. 
The  sacrifices  were  fines  imposed  on  the  guilty.  They  were 
also  daily  reminded  of  the  existence  of  God,  and  the  blood 
pouring  from  the  altar  taught  the  serious  nature  and  fatal 
consequences  of  sin  as  nothing  else  would.  Of  course,  to 
a  set  of  modern  sophists,  who  deny  the  existence  of  sin, 


FRED.  PERRY  POWERS1  REPLY.  81 

the  sacrifices  are  simply  meaningless,  revolving  spectacles; 
but  the  man  who  hasn't  studied  the  subject  enough  to 
understand  the  meaning  of  the  Hebrew  sacrifices  is  estopped 
from  discussing  them  in  public. 

The  barbarities  of  the  Mosaic  system  form  a  pet  subject 
of  denunciation  by  gentlemen  who  have  a  repugnance  to 
study,  coupled  with  a  mania  for  delivering  lectures,  when 
the  latter  can  be  done  at  a  pecuniary  profit.  If  a  man 
thinks  it  just  as  well  to  worship  the  sun  or  a  bull  as  to 
worship  Jehovah,  of  course  he  will  regard  the  penalties 
denounced  against  idolatry  as  tyrannical  and  barbarous. 
But  no  man,  unless  he  has  a  purpose  to  accomplish  thereby, 
can  shut  his  eyes  to  the  barrier  that  idolatry  places  in  the  / 
way  of  mental  or  moral  progress,  or  both.  The  interests  of 
the  human  race  demanded  that  paganism  should  be  roofed 
out  somewhere,  if  not  everywhere.  The  promise  to  Abra-  ~ 
ham,  that  in  his  seed  should  all  the  nations  of  the  earth  be 
blessed,  has  been  fulfilled,  but  that  has  been  accomplished 
only  by  the  most  rigorous  hostility  to  paganism  among  th6 
Jews.  In  spite  of  all  the  stern  laws  of  Moses,  Israel  again 
and  again  relapsed  into  paganism;  yet  it  was  an  absolute 
necessity  that  if  what  we  now  know  as  civilization  was  even 
to  come,  paganism  must  in  some  corner  of  tho  world  be 
stamped  out,  and  the  way  prepared  for  Christianity.  To 
teach  the  Israelites  what  a  moral  contagion  was  idolatry, 
they  had  to  be  taught  that  it  was  a  physical  contagion, 
contaminating  everything  connected  with  the  idolater.  Had 
not  this  been  done,  the  Israelites  would  have  remained,  \ 
like  all  the  rest  of  the  world,  immersed  in  the  unspeakably 
unclean  worship  of  Baal  and  Astarte  and  Moloch.  Cost  J 
what  it  might,  the  ravages  of  the  pestilence  had  to  be 
checked  somewhere. 
6 


83  MISTAKES  OF  INOEBSOLL. 


Excessive  Wickedness  and  Proportionate  Punishment — The  Court 
of  Heaven  vs.  the  Court  of  Earth. 

Of  course,  the  wars  of  the  Israelites  and  the  annihilation 
of  certain  tribes  are  held  to  be  horrible  cruelties  bj  the 
sophists  of  the  present  day.  But  we  are  distinctly  told 
that  it  was  for  their  extraordinary  wickedness  that  these 
tribes  were  exterminated.  We  are  again  and  again  told 
that  it  was  for  the  wickedness  of  the  Amalekites  that  their 
destruction  was  commanded.  "We  get  some  glimpses  of 
the  unmentionable  vileness  of  some  of  these  Canaanitish 
tribes.  The  fact  was  that  they  were  ulcers  on  the  body  of 
the  human  race  which  had  to  be  cut  out.  Possibly  the 
,  innocent  suffered  with  the  guilty,  and  possibly  there  were 
u  no  innocent  except  the  infants,  whom  it  would  have 
been  no  mercy  to  save  after  their  unclean  parents  were 
destroyed.  It  is  probable  that  the  moral  taint  had  so  rooted 
itself  in  the  physical  system  that,  had  the  children  been 
spared,  they  would  have  inevitably  developed  into  adults  as 
unclean  as  their  parents.  The  passages  sometimes  quoted 
to  show  that  Jehovah  was  vindicative,  are  passages  aimed 
at  sin.  The  most  ample  amnesty  to  the  repentant  is  prom- 
ised from  one  end  of  Genesis  to  the  other  end  of  Revelation. 
The  people  who  denounce  the  divine  government,  as  mani- 
fest in  the  Old  Testament,  either  deny  that  there  is  any 
such  thing  as  sin,  or,  which  is  often  the  case,  they  have 
admirable  reasons  for  being  angry  because  sin  is  punished. 

(  The  gentlemen  who  denounce  the  destruction  of  Sodom  are 
^ecessarily  apologists  for  the  Sodomists. 

When  malignancy  is  charged  against  Jehovah  it  is  im- 
portant  to  remember  that  the  presence  of  five  righteous1 

i  persons  would  have  saved  Sodom.  There  was  only  ono 
righteous  person,  and  not  only  was  he  enabled  to  escape 
but  he  secured  immunity  for  his  family.  Nineveh  was 


FRED.  PERRY  POWB&&  REPLY.  83 

spared  because  the  people  repented.  The  Israelites  were 
delivered  from  their  enemies  when  they  forsook  their  sins. 
On  the  other  hand  Nathan's  rebuke  to  David  is  a  matter  of 
record,  and  Solomon's  licentiousness  was  punished  by  the 
revolt  of  Jeroboam  and  the  ten  tribes,  lue  statement  that 
Jehovah  disregarded  distinctions  of  ricrlit  and  wrong,  or 

O  O  O' 

treated  the  innocent  and  guilty  alike,  or  took  pleasure  in 
the  death  even  of  the  wicked  is  false,  and  known  to  be  so  ' 
by  the  persons  who  make  it.     The  very  sentiment  of  hu- 
manity which  prompts  certain   persons  to  denounce  the  di- 
vine government  of  the  Jews  is  found  only  where  Chrie 
tianity,  the  legitimate  successor  of  Judaism,  prevails. 

What  are  denounced  as  massacres  committed  by  the 
Israelites  were  judicial  executions  performed  under  the  or- 
ders of  the  only  court  in  the  universe  which  has  perfect  in- 
formation of  the  cases  tried  before  it,  and  which  is  per- 
fectly free  from  weaknesses.  To  object  to  the  judgment 
one  must  either  show  that  the  condemned  were  innocent, 
which  at  this  late  day  can  not  be  shown,  or  one  must  show 
that  the  crimes  were  less  heinous  than  the  court  held  them 
to  be,  which  is  to  become  an  apologist  for  crimes  of  every 
character,  some  of  which  are  not  even  to  be  named.  It  is 
also  to  be  remembered  that  the  divine  government  is  the 
creator  of  society,  instead  of  the  creature  of  society,  as  is 
human  government.  The  former  is,  therefore,  not  to  be 
judged  precisely  as  the  latter  is,  even  though  abstract 
justice  is  the  same  in  Heaven  that  it  is  on  earth.  The 
charge  of  vindictiveness  is  absolutely  without  foundation ; 
and,  by  the  way,  of  all  the  nations  known  to  the  Jews  the 
one  we  might  suppose  them  most  hostile  to  is  the  Egypt- 
ian, for  it  was  in  Egypt  that  the  Israelites  were  enslaved 
and  maltreated.  Yet  the  divine  command,  coming  from 
Moses,  was  that  the  Israelites  should  in  no  case  oppress 
the  Egyptians,  and  the  reason  was  that  they  were  once  so- 


84  MISTAKES  OF  INGERSOLL. 

journors  in  the  land  of  Egypt,  the  very  reason  we  might 
suppose  v/hy  they  should  .be  especially  bitter  toward  the 
Egyptians. 

Able  Bodied  Mendacity  and  Civilization — Love  and  Obedience. 

There  is  a  good  deal  of  dense  ignorance  or  able-bodied 
mendacity  in  circulation  regarding  the  ethics  of  the  New 
Testament.  Jesus  Christ  and  His  apostles  upheld  neither 
political  nor  domestic  despotism.  But  it  is  a  fact  which 
lecturers  should  understand  that  civil  order  is  the  first 
stop  toward  civilization.  Despotism  is  more  conducive 
to  civilization  than  anarchy  is.  Furthermore,  when  Paul 
wrote  his  epistles  the  Roman  officials  suspected  all  Chris- 
tians of  being  hostile  to  the  government,  and  it  was  espe- 
cially necessary  that  the  Homan  power  should  understand 
by  the  loyalty  of  the  Christians  that  He  whom  they  called 
their  king  was  a  spiritual  sovereign,  and  not  a  rival  of  the 
emperor. 

What  Paul  at  a  particular  time  wrote  to  a  particular 
church  is  by  no  means  necessarily  a  universal  law.  What 
/  is  particularly  to  be  noted  is  that  the  exhortations  to  obe- 
dience on  the  part  of  the  citizen,  the  wife,  the  child  and 
the  servant  are  coupled  with  and  conditioned  on  exhorta- 
tions to  the  ruler,  the  husband,  the  parent  and  the  master, 
which  certain  uncandid  and  irrational  persons,  some  of 
whom  are  inside  the  church  and  some  of  whom  are  outside 
of  it,  are  careful  to  ignore.  In  Ephesians  v.  22,  Paul  com- 
mands wives  to  submit  themselves  to  their  husbands,  but 
in  the  twenty-fifth  verse  husbands  are  commanded  to  lovo 
their  wives  as  Christ  loves  His  church.  Now,  if  the  hus- 
band fulfills  his  part  of  the  mutual  obligation,  the  wife's 
submission  will  not  bo  of  a  very  mental  character.  In 
Ephesians  vi.  1,  children  are  commanded  to  obey  their  par- 
ento,  but  in  the  fourth  verse  fathers  are  commanded  not 


FRED.  PERRY  POWERS'  REPLY.  85 

to  provoke  their  children  to  wrath,  bnt  to  bring  them  up 
in  the  nurture  and  admonition  of  the  Lord.  In  the  next 
verso  servants  are  commanded  to  obey  their  masters,  but 
in  the  ninth  verse  we  read,  "And,  je  masters,  do  the  same 
things  unto  them,  forbearing  threatening,  knowing  that 
your  Master  also  is  in  Heaven;  neither  is  there  respect  of 
person  with  Him."  In  Hebrews  xiii.  17,  we  read,  "Obey 
them  that  have  the  rule  over  you,  and  submit  yourselves; 
for  they  watch  for  your  souls  as  they  that  must  give  account." 
The  command  to  obey  rules  is  conditioned  on  the  dis- 
charge of  their  duties  by  the  rulers. 

;ls~ow,  in  omitting  one  half  of  each  double  command,  and 
i  the  strength  of  the  other  half  arraigning  Christianity 
i  the  ally  of  domestic  and  political  tyranny,  modern  "free 
inought"  is  accomplishing  a  great  work,  is  it  not?    The 
distinguishing  characteristic  of  "  free  thought "  seems  to 

o  o  o 

be  that  it  is  thought  freed  from  all  subservience  to  facts. 

Mr.  Powers'  Pungent  Peroration. 

Theology  has  made  many,  shipwrecks  by  an  excess  of  a 
priori  reasoning,  and  by  reasoning  deductively  when  the 
means  of  reasoning  inductively  exist.  But  what  is  termed 
materialism  is  habitually  doing  the  same  thing,  if  it  can 
make  a  point  against  Christianity  by  so  doing.  The  ene- 
mies of  Calvinism  have  denounced  it  because  it  promoted 
immorality.  Yet  a  severer  code  of  morals  would  be  diffi- 
cult to  find  than  that  maintained  by  the  English  Puritans, 
the  Scotch  Covenanters,  and  the  French  Huguenots,  all  Cal- 
/vinists.  Would  it  not  be  just  as  rational  to  judge  Calvinism 
/  by  its  fruits  as  to  judge  its  fruits  by  Calvinism? 

When  man  has  argued  from  the  New  Testament  that 
Christianity  must  be  the  ally  of  despotism,  and  then  looks 
about  him  and  sees  that  civil  liberty  is  not  known  outside 
of  Christian  lands,  and  has  its  fullest  development  in  Eng- 


86  MISTAKES  OF  INGEESOLL. 

land  and  America,  where  Christianity  in  its  simplest  forms 
prevail,  and  where  there  are  tlie  fewest  barriers  between 
the  human  soul  and  the  New  Testament  itself;  when  he 
has  argued  from  the  New  Testament  to  show  that  Chris- 
tianity is  inimical  to  the  best  interests  of  womanhood,  and 
then  looks  around  and  sees  womanhood  honored  only  in 
Christian  countries,  constantly  employed  by  and  honored 
in  the  church,  must  it  not  occur  to  him  with  painful  force 
that  he  is  a  good  deal  off  the  track? 

x-  It  would  not  be  necessary  to  remind  philosophers  of  the 
fact,  but  it  is  necessary  to  remind  sophists  that  the  Jews  did 
a  good  many  things  that  the  Mosaic  dispensation  is  not 
responsible  for,  and  that  it  is  mere  idiocy  to  hold  Chris- 
tianity responsible  for  everything  done  by  individuals  or 
associations  in  its  name.  The  man  who  can  not  discrim- 
inate between  the  legitimate  results  of  a  system,  and  the 
abuses  grafted  on  to  it  by  its  professed  adherents,  is  plainly 
unfit  to  debate  philosophical  questions. 

If  people  made  half  the  effort  to  understand  the  Bible 
that  they  make  to  discard  it,  they  wouldn't  be  so  funny  as 
they  are  now,  but  they  would  know  more. 


f  THERE  are  over  two  hundred  passages  in  the  Old  Testa- 
ment which  prophesied  about  Christ,  and  every  one  of  them 
has  come  true. — D.  L.  Moody. 

IN  regard  to  the  Great  Book,  I  have  only  to  say  it  is  the 
best  gift  which  God  has  given  to  man.  All  the  good  from 
the  Saviour  of  the  World  is  communicated  through  this 
Book.  But  for  this  Book  we  could  not  know  right  from 
wrong.  All  those  things  desirable  to  man  are  contained 
in  it.  I  return  you  my  sincere  thanks  for  this  very  elegant 
copy  of  the  Great  Book  of  God  which  you  present. — Abra- 
ham Lincoln,  on  receiving  a  present  of  a  Bible. 


ITEMS.  87 

I  DEFY  you  all,  as  many  as  are  here,  to  prepare  a  tale  so  \ 
simple  and  so  touching,  as  the  tale  of  the  passion  and  death   / 
of  Jesus  Christ,  whose  influence  will  be  the  same  after  so 
many  centuries. — Denis  Diderot. 

THE  Bible  is  the  best  book  in  the  world.  It  contains  ~> 
more  of  my  little  philosophy  than  all  the  libraries  I  have  ' 
seen. — John  Adams.  (Second  President  of  United  States.) 

AND,  finally,  I  may  state,  as  the  conclusion  of  the  whole    \ 
matter,  that  the  Bible  contains  within  itself  all  that,  under 
God,  is  required  to  account  for  and  dispose  of  all  forms  of  / 
infidelity,  and  to  turn  to  the  best  and  highest  uses  all  that 
man  can  learn  of  nature. — Chancellor  Dawson. 

THE  Bible  is  the  only  cement  of  nations,  and  the  only 
cement  that  can  bind  religious  hearts  together. — Chevalier 
Eunsen. 

THE  Bible  is  the  Word  of  God — with  all  the  peculiarities  \ 
of  man,  and  all  the  authority  of  God. — Prof.  Murphy. 

FKOM  the  time  that,  at  my  mother's  feet,  or  on  my  fa- 
ther's knee,  I  first  learned  to  lisp  verses  from  the  sacred 
writings,  they  have  been  my  daily  study  and  vigilant  con- 
templation. If  there  be  anything  in  my  style  or  thoughts 
to  be  commended,  the  credit  is  due  to  my  kind  parents  in 
instilling  into  my  mind  an  early  love  of  the  Scriptures. — 
Daniel  Webster. 

THE  same  divine  hand  which  lifted  up  before  the  eyes 
of  Daniel  and  of  Isaiah  the  veil  which  covered  the  tableau 
of  the  time  to  come,  unveiled  before  the  eyes  of  the  author 
of  Genesis  the  earliest  asres  of  the  creation.  And  Moses 

o 

was  the  prophet  of  the  past,  as  Daniel  and  Isaiah  and  many 
others  were  the  prophets  of  the  future. — Prof.  Guyot. 

WE  are  persuaded  that  there  is  no  book  by  the  perusal 
of  which  the  mind  is  so  much  strengthened  and  so  much 
enlarged  as  it  is  by  the  perusal  of  the  Bible. — Dr.  Melville. 


1 1'hotogrnpheJ  by  Mo>>it-i-  ] 


BISHOP  CHENET8  REPLY. 


BISHOP  CHENEY'S  REPLY. 


How  the  Question  of  Forgery  Applies  to  the  Five  Books  of  Moses. 

IN  looking  at  almost  any  object  in  the  world  of  nature  ; 
round  about,  it  becomes  remarkable  only  from  certain  points  / 
of  view.  The  cathedral  rocks  that  form  one  of  the  glories 
of  tho  Fosemite  Yalley  differ  not  much  from  any  other  great 
pile  of  jagged  cliffs,  except  in  a  certain  position,  where  the 
great  mass  of  Gothic  spires  and  arches  appear  clothed  with 
evergreen  ivy.  Only  as  you  reach  a  certain  point  where 
Profile  Notch  penetrates  the  "White  Mountains,  do  you  see  far 
up,  up  on  the  topmost  cliff,  the  formation  of  a  face  cut  in  the 
solid  gran  ite  by  nature's  own  chisel.  But  the  case  of  alleged 
forgery  before  us  is  extraordinary  from  every  point  of  view, 
for  forgery  is  generally  something  which  concerns  some 
brief  document,  something  that  requires  only  a  signature 
in  order  to  secure  its  currency.  The  longer  and  more  elab- 
orate the  document  which  forgery  produces,  the  more  danger 
there  must  inevitably  be  of  its  final  and  ultimate  detection. 
Bat  here  are  five  long  historic  books.  They  are  full  of 
details.  They  cover  vast  periods  of  time.  Tiny  enter  into 
a  variety  of  topics.  Incidentally  they  discuss  not  only  ques- 
tions of  religion,  but  of  law,  of  politics,  of  commerce,  even 
of  hygiene — medical  laws  of  health.  "Was  ever  forgery  com- 
mitted before  or  since  on  such  a  gigantic  scale  as  this? 
Moreover,  there  is  no  crime  that  is  liable  to  be  so  speedily 
detected  as  forgery.  The  man  who  signs  some  document 
with  another's  name  rarely  goes  down  to  the  grave  without 
meeting  his  punishment  here  on  earth.  Why,  only  a  few 
weeks  ago,  the  doors  of  our  penitentiary,  in  the  State  of 


•90  MISTAKES  OF  INGERSOLL 

Illinois,  closed  upon  a  prisoner  who  had  affixed  the  name  of 
another,  whose  name  was  better  than  his  own,  to  a  check 
upon  which  he  had  received  the  money;  but  only  one  month 
intervened  as  a  gap  between  that  crime  and  the  punishment 
it  merited  and  received. 

It  was  a  hundred  years  ago,  that  Thomas  Chatterton,  one 
•of  the  most  wonderful  men,  or  boys,  I  might  rather  say, 
that  England  has  ever  produced,  forged  a  huge  mass  of 
papers,  professedly  historical,  that  were  dated  away  back 
in  the  thirteenth  and  fourteenth  centuries.  The  style  was 
that  of  the  monks  and  chroniclers,  which  he  had  imitated 
with  the  greatest  possible  perfection.  The  references  to 
the  customs  of  tjjat  ancient  period  were  such  as  to  avoid 
detection,  and  Chatterton,  in  the  precocity  of  his  intellect, 
and  in  the  versatility  of  his  talent,  was  without  a  peer  in 
English  literary  history.  The  English  literary  world  re- 
ceived it  as  a  revelation  out  of  lost  centuries.  The  great 
scholars  of  England  were  deceived.  But  it  only  took 
three  years  to  expose  to  every  eye  the  fraud  that  had  been 
•committed,  and  Chatterton,  whom  Wordsworth  called  the 
"marvelous  bov."  ended  his  career  in  a  suicide's  crave.  O, 

v     '  O 

brethren!  who  can  count  the  years,  who  can  enumerate  the 
•centuries  which  have  rolled  over  this  world  of  ours  since  the 
allege  1  forgery  of  this  man  Moses!  And  yet  to-day,  after 
the  lapse  of  centuries,  there  are  more  people  who  believe  in 
that  forgery  as  the  genuine  work  of  the  man  whom  God 
appointed  the  great  law-giver  and  leader  of  Israel,  there  are 
more  people  who  hang  their  hopes  for  time  and  eternity  on 
this  alleged  i'raud,  and  that  which  has  grown  out  of  this 
alleged  fraud — the  Gospel  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ — than 
ever  before  in  two  thousand  years.  Am  I  not  then  justified 
in  saying  that  if  this  be  a  forgery,  which  is  contained  in 
the  five  books  of  Moses,  it  is  the  most  extraordinary  forgery 
that  has  ever  been  committed  in  the  world  sinco  words 


BISHOP  CHENEY'S  REPLY.  91 

expressed  human  thought,  or  human  beings  learned  to  wield 
a  pen? 

The   "  Common   Ground "  of  the  Contending  Parties — Logical 
Position  of  Ezra. 

Now,  in  the  first  place,  I  desire  to  call  your  attention  to 
certain  facts  concerning  the  Mosaic  record.  In  all  contro- 
versies in  every  department  of  human  thought  there  are 
certain  points  which  are  regarded  as  neutral  ground.  "When 
our  great  civil  war  shook  this  land  from  centre  to  circum- 
ference and  two  mighty  armies  were  face  to  face  in  the 
Valley  of  the  Tennessee,  the  stars  and  stripes  floated  in  the 
same  breeze  that  wafted  the  stars  and  the  bars  ;  the  strains 
of  "'Dixie"  and  "My  Maryland"  commingled  with 
41  Hail  Columbia  "  and  the  "  Star-Spangled  Banner  :"  the 
;«oldiers  of  the  different  armies  exchanged  such  commodi- 
ties as  they  possessed,  as  if  they  had  been  neighbors  in 
peace  at  home.  No  wonder  that  finally  it  came  to  pass 
that  between  these  armies  there  was  what  is  known  as 
neutral  ground,  on  which  it  was  agreed  th-.it  the  soldiers  of 
one  side  should  not  lire  on  those  of  the  other.  Now,  is 
there  any  such  ground  as  that  between  those  who  defend 
what  are  known  as  the  five  books  cf  Moses,  and  those  who 
•declare  they  were  never  written  by  Moses  at  all  ?  Is  there 
any  point,  I  say,  in  this  controversy  where  the  skeptic  and 
the  believer  can  come  to  stand  upon  one  common  ground  ? 
If  we  can  find  such  a  neutral  ground  as  that,  it  will  save 
us  a  long,  tiresome,  profitless  debate. 

Now,  such  a  ground  I  think  we  have  in  the  life  and  his- 
tory of  Ezra,  the  writer  of  the  book  of  the  Old  Testament, 
which  bears  his  name.  It  is  conceded  on  all  hands  that 
this  man  was  a  scribe  of  the  Jewish  law  after  the  close  of 
the  Babylonian  captivity.  After  the  people  had  returned 
from  the  land  of  their  exile  into  the  land  of  their  fathers, 


93  MISTAKES  OF  INGERSOLL. 

he  gathered  into  one  great  collection  all  these  sacred  writ- 
ings that  were  held  by  the  Jews  to  be  the  inspired  word 
of  God.  No  infidel  that  I  am  aware  of  has  ever  questioned 
the  fact  that  in  this  collection  of  Ezra  was  contained  the 
five  books  of  Moses.  It  has  been  claimed  by  some  of  the 
least  scholarly  of  infidels  that  Ezra  wrote  those  five  books. 
But  that  idea  was  found  visionary  and  was  long  ago  given 
up  by  those  who  opposed  the  truth  of  Christianity.  But 
the  fact  remains  that  no  one,  Christian  or  unbeliever,  to-day 
questions  the  historic  fact  that  the  five  books  of  Moses,  as 
we  now  accept  them,  were  received  as  the  writings  of  the 
lawgiver  of  the  Jewish  people  when  Ezra  was  at  the  acmo 
of  his  influence  after  the  Baylonian  captivity:  But  they 
state  that  it  was  universally  conceded  that  it  was  four  hun- 
dred and  fifty  years  before  the  birth  of  Christ.  In  other 
words,  it  was  admitted  that  every  Jew  who  returned  out  of 
the  Babylonian  captivity,  held  these  five  books  to  be  tho 
works  of  Moses,  the  man  of  God,  twenty-three  hundred 
years  ago. 

The  Bishop  Planting  Signals  on  the  Mountain  Tops  of  History — 
Survey  of  the  New  Moses  Air  Line. 

We  stand,  then,  without  dispute,  without  any  controversy, 
at  this  point  of  time — four  hundred  and  fifty  years  bcforo 
the  birth  of  our  Lord  and  Saviour  Jesus  Chriot.  Now,  fix 
that  point  in  your  memory  while  I  attempt,  like  a  civil  en- 
ineer  penetrating  some  wilderness,  to  plant  the  signal 
on  some  more  remote  mountain  top  of  history.  Now,  all 
the  ancient  writings,  whether  Egyptian  or  Chaldean,  cor- 
roborate the  testimony  of  the  Bible  that  these  Hebrews 
were  slaves  in  the  land  of  Egypt.  They  also  agree  that 
they  migrated  into  Southern  Syria,  under  the  leadership  of 
a  man  who  was  called  Moses — a  word  which  meant  '•  one 
drawn  out  of  the  water."  It  is  also  universally  allowed 

at  they  settled  in  this  new  land,  which  had  long  before 


ai 

dr 
th 


BISHOP  CHE  NET' 8  REPLY.  93 

i 
been  promised  to  their  fathers,  about  the  year  1450  before 

Christ.  "We  have  established  then  our  second  date— a  date 
which  no  skeptic  has  ever  called  in  question.  When  our 
great  tunnel  that  brings  the  pure  water  of  Lake  Michigan 
into  every  home  and  household  in  this  city  was  in  process 
of  construction,  the  workmen  began  at  either  end.  There 
was  a  shaft  out  in  yonder  crib,  and  there  was  another  on 
the  shore,  and  underneath  the  waves  the  two  parties  of 
toilers  worked  toward  each  other.  And  so  it  is  with  us. 
We  tunnel  between  our  two  shafts.  The  date  450  B.  C.  and 
the  date  1450  B.  C. — only  one  thousand  years  are  to  be  ac- 
counted for.  Does  that  seem  along  period  of  timeto  you? 
I  admit  that  it  does,  but  not  in  the  history  of  nations.  It 
is  only  a  trifle  more  than  the  time  in  which  you  and  I  are 
living  is  removed  from  the  time  of  William  of  Normandy, 
who  conquered  Harold  and  the  English  barons. 

Now  we  will  cross  the  sea  to   the  old  tower  that  still 
recalls  the  memory  of  William  the  Conqueror.     We  will 
enter  the  office  of  public  records,  and  in  that  fire-proof  vault, 
guarded  as  they  guard  the  specie  that  is  gathered  into  the 
treasury  of  the  nation,  is  a  book  in  two  huge  volumes  of 
vellum.     It  is  known  as  the  "  Doomsday  Book."     In  tha    / 
year  108G,  eight  hundred  years  ago,  remember,  William  the\  \. 
Conqueror  caused  that  record  to  be  prepared.     It  is  nearly 
as  old  as  the  five  books  of  Moses,  the  Pentateuch,  was  in 
the  days  of   Ezra  the   scribe.      But  not  a  page   of  the       / 
"Doomsday  Book5'   has  been  lost;   not  a  line  has  beenV  J 
altered;  not  a  letter  erased.     Its  pages  read  to-day  as  they 
did  in  this  old  time  when  the  Norman  heel  was  on  the 
Saxon  neck — eight  centuries   ago.      The  ink   is   as   fresh 
on  the  parchment  as  though  that  parchment  were  unstained 
by  age.     Do  you  ask  how  it  is  that  the  record  has  remained 
uncorrupted?     Do  you  ask  how  it  is  that  after  all  the  revo- 
lutions that  have  swept  over  England,  after  all  the  changes 


V 


94  MISTAKES  OF  INGERSOLL. 

of  royal  houses,  and  the  dissolutions  of  powerful  parties,, 
that  that  has  remained  perfectly  unaltered?  The  answer  is- 
a  perfectly  easy  one  to  give.  It  is  because  "  Doomsday 
Book  "  contains  the  name  of  every  man,  who,  in  the  days 
of  William  the  Conqueror,  owned  one  rood  of  English  soiL 
It  contains  a  description  of  the  lands  throughout  the  realm. 
It  gives  the  boundaries  of  every  great  estate,  and  every  old 
English  family  must,  therefore,  find  the  roots  of  Us  gene- 
alogy in  that  old  book  of  the  early  times  of  the  Norman 
conquest.  It  gives  the  title  to  every  acre  of  land  in  Eng- 
land. Thus,  two  of  the  strongest  motives  that  can  influence 
the  human  mind  and  the  human  will,  have  conspired  to 
guard  this  "  Doomsday  Book  "  with  a  jealous  and  tireless- 
care. 

The  possession  of  a  great  name,  and  the  possession  of 
landed  property  are  wrapped  up  in  England  in  the  safety  of 
that  one  book.  Now,  exactly  the  same  motives  conspired 
for  the  preservation,  from  all  corruption,  of  the  five  books 

f  Moses.  They  contain  the  list  of  those  who  came  out  of 
Egypt  with  Moses  and  entered  into  Palestine;  they  gave  a 
description  of  the  land  that  was  apportioned  to  each  and 
every  name.  To  lose  these  books,  which  the  Jews  ever 
regarded  as  a  precious  treasure,  the  genealogy  of  their 
household — to  suffer  them  to  be  tampered  with,  was  to 

nsettle  the  title  to  every  man's  field  from  Dan  to  Beersheba. 
If  the  "  Doomsday  Book "  has  survived,  uncorrupted> 
what  reason  on  earth  is  there  to  doubt  that  the  Penta- 
teuch was  preserved  intact  during  the  thousand  years  that 
intervened  between  the  time  of  Moses  and  the  time  of  Ezra? 
But  I  need  not  stop  here.  Ezra,  as  I  have  said,  was  one  of! 
the  captives  who  returned  out  of  exile.  But  Daniel,  long 
before  the  time  of  Ezra,  speaks  of  this  law  of  Moses.  He 
bases  his  own  conduct  and  his  own  private  character  upon 
it.  Daniel  brings  us  a  hundred  years  nearer  to  the  days 


BISHOP  CHENEY'S  REPLY.  95 

when  Moses  gave  that  law  to  the  world.  When  King  Josiah 
mounted  the  throne  of  Judah  he  found  that  throno  pol- 
luted by  the  wickedness  that  characterized  the  reign  of  his 
father,  King  Manasseh,  and  then  there  came  an  overwhelm' 
ing  and  powerful  revival  of  religion  throughout  the  king- 
dom. Monarch  and  subject  united  in  humiliation  before 
God.  Numbers  of  people  bowed  down  before  the  Jehovah 
whom  they  had  offended.  But,  we  all  distinctly  know  that 
the  root  and  the  seed  out  of  which  this  revival  sprung  was 
the  finding  of  the  copy  of  the  five  books  of  Moses,  and  / 
learning  there  what  Moses  had  commanded  against  the  sin 
of  idolatry.  I  have  reached  a  point  nearer  yet  to  the  time 
of  Moses  himself.  I  will  hasten  on. 

Termination  of  the  Great  Air  Line. 

One  thousand  and  four  years  before  Christ,  Solomon 
regulated  the  temple  service  and  worship,  but  he  regulated  it,, 
we  are  distinctly  told,  according  to  the  law  that  was 
contained  in  the  Pentateuch.  And  we  are  within  four  hun- 
dred and  fifty  years  of  the  death  of  Moses.  But  David 
refers  constantly  to  the  five  books  of  Moses  in  the  psalms. 
The  law  of  Moses  was  the  foundation  on  which  all  the  relig- 
ious character  of  the  psalms  of  David  rest.  Before  David 
was  Samuel.  His  entire  career  pre-supposes  the  exist- 
ence of  the  Mosaic  books.  But  only  three  hundred 
and  fifty  years  intervened  between  Samuel  and  Moses. 
Joshua  succeeded  Moses  as  the  leader  of  the  chosen  people. 
Again  and  again  in  his  addresses  to  the  people,  did  he 
reprove,  exhort  and  encourage  Israel,  but  everywhere  on 
the  basis  of  the  books  of  the  law  of  Moses.  Thus,  we  have 
link  by  link  carried  back  this  chain  of  testimony  to  the  very 
days  in  which  Moses  lived.  Now  we  want  no  better  proof 
than  that  in  the  secular  history.  Suppose  the  farewell 
address  of  George  Washington  had  been  made  the  object  of 


96  MISTAKES  OF  INGERSOLL. 

/  skeptical  criticism;  suppose  that  it  had  been  denied  that  it 
had  been  written  by  Washington,  and  if  I  find  it  alluded  to 
in  Mr.  Lincoln's  address  at  the  monument-raising  in  Gettys- 
burg; if  I  find  in  ore  of  his  f  speeches  that  President  Polk 
also  spoke  of  it;  if  t'.iis  is  true  of  Mr.  Van  Burcn,  and  Mr. 
Madison  before  him,  and  if  even  John  Adams,  the  suc- 

I  cessor  of  George  Washington  in  the  presidential  chair, 
refers  to  that  address — why  then,  every  sensible  man  will 
eay  that  it  is  the  nearest  equivalent  of  mathematical  demon- 
stration that  can  possibly  be  given  of  the  genuineness  of 
the  document  to  which  I  have  referred. 

Genealogical  Reflections. 

Now,  I  want  you  to  notice  again  that  if  these  writings 
were  forged,  they  were  forged  by  men,  who  even  in  so 
doing,  blackened  the  character  of  their  own  lineage  and  an- 
cestry. It  has  been  well  said  that  a  man  whose  chief  glory 
is  in  his  ancestors,  is  very  like  a  potato — the  best  part  of 
him  is  underground.  But  after  all  there  is  no  good  man 
who  does  not  rejoice — and  thank  God  for  the  fact — when 
he  is  able  to  trace  back  a  long  line  of  God-fearing,  pure- 
living,  honest  men  and  women  as  the  seed  from  whence  ho 
sprang.  If  I  go  to  work  and  forge  a  genealogy  for  my- 
self, I  certainly  will  not  manufacture  one  that  describes 
my  forefathers  as  the  blackest  set  of  criminals  that  ever 
escaped  from  a  penitentiary.  No  one  pretends  for  a  mo- 
ment that  any  one  but  the  Jews  were  those  who  could 
have  been  responsible  for  the  Testament  records  ;  but  it 
they  forged  it  they  must  have  had  some  motive.  Forgers 
always  have  a  motive.  There  is  something  before  their 
minds  that  is  to  be  gained.  But  what  did  these  forgers 
do  ?  Why  they  compiled  a  record  of  their  own  family  tree, 
that  overwhelmed  their  fathers  with  everlasting  shame  and 
contempt.  They  described  the  ancient  Hebrews  as  besotted 


BISHOP  CHENEY'S  REPLY.  97 

idolaters  in  the  land  of  Egypt.  When  God  promised  them 
a  land,  all  their  own,  flowing  with  milk  and  honey — when, 
all  that  was  set  before  them — they  were  willing  to  give  up 
all  hope  of  prosperity,  all  hope  of  deliverance  from  slavery, 
if  they  might  only  have  that  which  they  sighed  for — tho 
fish  and  the  leeks  and  garlic  of  Egypt.  They  arc  repre- 
sented as  bowing  down  to  the  worship  of  a  calf,  which 
their  own  hands  had  made  out  of  their  golden  ear-rings, 
and  doing  that  in  the  very  presence  of  God,  displayed 
upon  Mount  Sinai,  and  arc  described  when  they  reached 
the  borders  of  the  promised  land,  when  all  ifs  glory  was 
before  them,  and  its  liberty  was  almost  theirs,  as  being 
too  cowardly  to  fight  the  battles  that  were  necessary  to 
gain  the  possession  of  their  inheritance,  till  at  last  God 
refused  to  let  one  of  tho  miserable,  cowardly  generation 
enter  the  land  He  had  promised  to  tlieir  fathers.  Yet 
all  this  is  forgery,  not  of  the  Assyrians,  not  of  tho 
Egyptians,  who  were  their  hereditary  enemies  ;  not  of  tho 
Philistines,  but  themselves — the  forgery  of  the  Jews  them- 
selves. As  though  in  the  dead  of  night  a  man  should  steal 
out  under  cover  of  the  darkness  to  the  tombstone  of  his 
dead  father,  and  with  chisel  and  mallet  in  hand  try  to  erase 
the  honorable  record  of  his  life,  and  forge  a  lying  epitaph 
that  made  him  the  vilest  scoundrel  that  ever  polluted  the 
earth.  Nay,  if  I  commit  a  forgery  on  my  family  record,  if 
ever  I  try  to  impose  a  fabulous  family  tree  on  those  who 
know  me,  I  don't  think  I  shall  ever  trace  my  line  to  CaBsar 
Borgia. 

Cutting  the  Oordian  Knot. 

Now  again  I  would  like  to  notice  very  briefly  some  of 
the  objections  to  the  credibility  of  the  Mosaic  writers. 
Now,  there  is  nothing  easier  than  to  start  difficulties 
on  any  subject  which  the  human  mind  can  give  atten- 
tion to.  Let  a  child  in  its  tiny  fingers  grasp  a  pin  and 
7 


98  MISTAKES  OF  1NGERSOLL. 

get  at  the  silvered  side  of  a  mirror,  and  in  five  minutes  it 
will  do  more  damage  than  the  most  skillful  laborer  can 
remedy  with  the  work  of  many  hours. 

Is  it  wonderful  that  the  Bible  has  been  made  the  subject 

(of  repeated  attacks  ?  I  no  more  hope  to  answer  all  the 
objections  that  can  be  put  against  a  book  such  as  the  book 
in  question,  or  even  the  books  of  Moses — I  say  I  can  no 
more  hope  to  answer  all  these  attacks  than  in  this  spring- 
time 1  can  hope  to  pick  off  every  green  leaf  that  starts  out 
upon  every  spreading  tree.  It  were  an  easier  and  more 
effective  way  to  girdle  the  tree  itself.  God  girdles  the  tree 
of  infidelity  by  revival. 

,    If  the  record  of  experience  tells  any  fact  in  the  world, 
/it  is  this,  that  a  thousand  objections  which  the  head  can 

/  see,  vanish  into  thin  air  when  the  spirit  of  God  gets 
hold  of  a  man's  heart.  Why,  there  are  men  here  to-night 
who  remember  the  hour  when  they  found  difficulties 
upon  every  page  of  the  word  of  God,  when  they  objected 
to  every  principle  it  propounded,  and  now  look  back  to  the 
difficulties  they  used  to  find  there,  and  wonder  how  it  was 
possible  that  they  could  ever  have  been  troubled  by  difficul- 
ties so  palpably  absurd.  They  did  not  study  out  one  by 
one  the  replies  that  might  have  been  made  to  these  objec- 
tions. When,  in  June,  huge  swarms  of  flies  make  our  city 
/•like  the  land  of  Egypt  in  the  days  of  old,  we  never  under- 

/  take  to  kill  them  one  by  one  :  half  a  million  of  people 
would  not  be  sufficient  for  that.  But  God's  west  wind 
blows,  and  they  are  scattered.  So  it  is  that  the  winds  of 
God's  spirit  sweep  away  the  swarms  of  difficulties  that  men 
V  find  in  the  Bible.  And  yet  I  am  prepared  to-night  to  take 
up  two  or  three  of  the  objections  which  have  been  I'.rged 
against  the  credibility  of  the  Pentateuch.  These  objections 
resolve  themselves  into  two  different  parts — the  one  to  the 
facts  of  the  history  of  Moses,  the  other  to  the  morality  of 


BISHOP  CHE  NETS  REPLY.  99 

the  acts  that  are  there  recorded,  or  the  precepts  that  are 
there  laid  down.  I  won't  have  time  to  go  over  both 
branches  of  the  subject  The  limits  of  such  a  sermon  as 
this  absolutely  forbid  it.  I  speak  now  of  the  facts.  At 
some  future  time  I  hope  to  take  up  the  moral  portion  of  it. 

Now,  every  time  you  visit  the  South  Park,  you  find  a 
place  of  rest  under  the  grateful  shade  of  an  ancient  willow. 
The  vast  expanse  of  its  gigantic  branches,  the  immense 
girth  of  its  trunk  are  the  witnesses  of  its  venerable  age. 
If  I  should  take  up  to-morrow  the  report  of  the  park  com- 
missioners and  find  there  the  statement  that  they,  a-t  vast 
expense,  had  transplanted  that  willow  tree  from  the  native 
soil  in  which  it  grew  to  adorn  Chicago's  pleasure-ground, 
I  should  know  beforehand  that  it  was  false;  the  very  appear- 
ance of  the  tree  gives  the  lie  to  the  statement,  and  if  there 
were  any  way  in,. which  I  could  examine  the  rings  that 
made  up  the  trunk,  I  need  only  count  them  to  have  a  posi- 
tive proof  of  the  fact  that  the  statement  contained  in  the 
report  was  false. 

Now,  precisely  akin  to  that  is  the  accusation  that  is  often 
brought  against  the  Book  of  Genesis.  It  is  said  that  Moses 

O  O 

declares  that  six  thousand  years  ago  God  created  this  world 
in  which  we  are  living  now.  But  we  only  need  to  count 
the  geologic  strata — we  only  need  to  number  the  rings  of 
the  huge  trunk  of  this  earth  in  order  to  disprove  the 
statement. 

The  Bishop's  Challenge — Moses  and  Ingersoll  as  Chronologists. 

Now,  in  reply  to  this  difficulty,  which  is  so  often  urged 
against  the  Book  of  Genesis,  I  want  to  say  one  word,  and 
that  is,  I  challenge  any  man  in  this  congregation — I  chal- 
lenge any  man  in  the  wide  world  that  has  ever  read  the 
Bible,  to  find  in  any  book  of  the  Bible,  much  less  in  the 
Book  of  Genesis,  the  statement  that  the  creation  of  this. 


100  MISTAKES  OF  INGERSOLL. 

earth  took  place  six  thousand  years  ago.  This  Moses, 
whom  Col.  Ingersoll  thinks  was  such  a  blunderer;  whose 
mistakes  have  been  the  subject  of  his  jeers  and  blasphem- 
ous ridicule,  was  a  more  careful  man  than  our  Peoria  skep- 
tic thinks.  lie  certainly  was  careful  not  to  fix  the  time  at 
which  God  created  this  earth.  "Whether  that  creation  took 
place  six  thousand  or  six  million  years  ago,  he  does  not 
state.  lie  does  say  that  "In  the  beginning  God  created 
the  heavens  and  the  earth."  But  that  is  all.  All  that  he 
asserts  is,  that  matter — the  substance  out  of  which  the 
earth  was  made — is  not  eternal;  it  had  a  beginning;  He 
did  create  it. 

"Well,  then,  again,  the  creation  of  man,  equally  with  that 
of  the  world,  is  made  the  object  of  attack.  "We  are  told 
that  the  Bible  claims  that  between  live  and  six  thousand 
years  ago  God  placed  the  first  pair  of  the  human  family  in 
Eden.  But  when  geologists  have  dag  down  into  the  forma- 
tions that  make  up  this  globe — formations  which  upon 
mathematical  calculation  have  taken  ages  and  ages  to  pro- 
duce —  they  find  there  the  remains  of  ancient  tools,  weap- 
ons, ornaments  and  utensils  that  prove  that  man  must  have 
lived  in  a  time  far  ante-distant  to  that  of  Adam. 

For  example,  the  skeleton  of  an  Indian  was  exhumed 
some  years  ago,  while  digging  for  the  foundation  of  the 
gas-works  in  the  City  of  New  Orleans,  and  it  was  alleged 
by  one  geologist  of  that  day  that  it  could  not  have  been 
less  than  fifty  thousand  years  ago  that  that  man  lived.  It 
has  been  flaunted  in  our  faces  that  science  and  religion  aro 
opposed  to  each  other;  that  the  Bible  is  against  progress, 
and  that  we  all  must  concede  that  the  Pentateuch  is  but  a 
tissue  of  falsehood. 

Now  the  first  answer  I  have  to  give  is,  that  there  is  not 
one  syllable  in  the  Bible  that  fixes  the  length  of  time  01 
man's  existence  upon  this  earth.  Not  one  syllable.  Moses 


BISHOP  CHENEY'S  REPLY.  101 

docs  not  tell  us  anything  about  the  date  that  God  created 
Adam  .and  put  him  in  the  garden  of  Eden.  True,  we  have 
in  the  New  Testament,  in  the  fjcncalojjv  of  Christ,  a  state- 

O  O"' 

ment  of  the  number  of  generations  from  Abraham  down 
to  the  Saviour;  but  who  knows  precisely  what  is  the  mean- 
ing of  the  term  "  generations?"  The  word  is  used  in  a  variety 
of  senses  in  the  Bible,  and  it  baffles  all  calculation  to  deter- 
mine how  many  ages  intervened  between  Adam  and  Abra- 
ham. The  wisest  scholars  have  been  perplexed  to  fix  the 
number  of  centuries  that  rolled  over  the  world  in  that 
period  of  time.  To  say  that  God  placed  man  upon  this 
earth  six  thousand  years  ago,  is  not  quoting  the  Bible.  I 
want  you  to  remember  that.  I  want  you  to  tell  it  to  the 
skeptic  that  picks  out  genealogical  difficulties  in  the  Scrip- 
ture. It  is  only  repeating  the  result  of  calculations  in 
chronology  of  certain  fallible  men  who,  as  fallible,  were 
liable  to  be  mistaken.  All  infi lels  do  it  in  trying  to  fasten 
upon  the  Scripture  tho  blunders  of  mistaken  men.  But, 
as  is  well  known,  the  tendency  of  the  best  geologists  in 
our  day  is  rapidly  going  away  from  the  old  ideas  of  the 
vast  periods  of  time  in  the  construction  of  this  earth. 

Mud  Calendars  vs.  Facts— Some  Sad  and   Sorrowful   Scientific 
Figuring  in  the  Sand. 

It  was  not  very  long  ago  that  Sir  Charles  Lyell,  the  distin- 
guished English  geologist,  calculated  from   his  own  stand-      \ 
point  the  rate  at  which  the  mud  is  deposited  in  the  great       \ 
delta  of  the  Mississippi.     By  actual  figures  he  reached  the 
astounding  calculation  that  the  formation  of  the  delta  of 

O 

the  Mississippi  must  have  occupied  not  less  than  one 
hundred  thousand  years.  And,  when  down  underneath 
that  deposit  a  skeleton  was  exhumed,  it  proved  beyond  all 
question  that  not  less  than  fifty  thousand  years  ago  human 
feet  had  trod  the  soft  soil  of  the  delta  of  the  Mississippi. 


102  MISTAKES  OF  INGERSOLL, 

But  unfortunately  for  Sir  Charles  Lyell,  American  geolo- 
gists were  on  his  track,  and  the  United  States  coast  survey 
followed  in  the  pathway  where  he  had  been  investigating. 
Gen.  Humphrey,  of  the  American  army,  measured  accu- 
rately the  amount  of  the  deposit.  He  reviewed  the  figures 
of  the  English  geologist,  and  he  showed  unanswerably  that 
the  whole  delta  of  the  Mississippi  could  not  have  been  in 
process  of  formation  longer  than  four  thousand  four  hundred 
years.  For  many  years  geologists  held  that  a  quantity  of 
pottery  that  was  found  some  sixty  feet  below  the  surface  of 
the  soil,  in  the  delta  of  the  Nile,  was  at  least  twelve  thousand 
years  old.  But  later  investigations  deeper  down  in  the  same 
soil  came  upon  some  more  patterns,  which  were  undoubtedly 
of  Roman  origin,  and  under  these,  a  brick  that  bore  inefface- 
ably  the  stamp  of  Mehemet  Ali,  a  modern  pasha. 

If  you  have  visited  Minneapolis,  you  certainly  musthavo 
been  struck  by  the  formation  of  the  banks  where  the  Mis- 
sissippi has  cut  its  way  through  the  rocks.  Above  there  is 
layer  upon  layer,  stratum  upon  stratum  of  limestone,  and 
beneath  them  the  saccharoid  sandstone,  white  as  the  sugar 
from  which  it  derives  its  name,  and  soft  enough  to  be  cut 
with  a  knife,  lies  in  hujje  masses.  On  the  bluff  overlooking 

o  o 

the  river,  there  lives,  in  an  immense  house,  which  many 
years  ago  was  a  popular  hotel  of  the  ancient  city  of  St. 
Anthony's  Falls,  a  friend  of  mine.  One  day  there  came  to 
him  startling  news.  Just  outside  of  his  premises,  in  exca- 
vating for  the  foundation  of  a  new  building,  the  workmen 
had  struck  upon  a  wooden  coffin,  and  in  it  they  found  what 
was  recognized  to  be,  beyond  all  doubt,  human  bones.  A 
local  geologist,  a  physician  of  the  state,  with  some  skeptical 
tendencies,  seized  upon  this  new  foundation  of  the  an- 
tiquity of  man,  and  the  next  day  the  columns  of  an  even- 
ing paper  of  St.  Paul  contained  an  article  from  this  gen* 
tleman's.pen  about  what  countless  ages  must  have  elapsed 


B1SIIOP  CHENEY'S  REPLY.  103 

to  perfect  that  saccharoid  sandstone  over  the  coffin,  and 
over  that  to  have  put  these  layers  upon  layers  of  rock. 

The  conclusion  was,  that  the  chronology  of  the  Bible 
was  utterly  a  mistake,  and  that  we  had,  before  the  days  ol 
Mr.  Ingersoll,  one  of  the  mistakes  of  Moses.  On  reading 
the  article  my  friend  felt  at  once  it  was  his  duty  to  investi- 
gate the  event.  lie  found  the  coffin  still  unremoved,  for 
it  was  solidly  wedged  into  the  saccharoid  sandstone,  and 
small  pieces  of  the  bones  were  scattered  carelessly  about 
My  friend,  whose  Christian  feeling  is  only  equaled  by  his 
profound  ability  and  scholarship,  began  carefully  to  examine 
these  relics  of  pre-Adamite  man.  Imagine  his  surprise  to 
find  that  the  coffin  which  had  been  made  so  many  ages  be- 
fore Adam  was  placed  upon  this  earth,  was  the  plank  sewer 
of  the  old  hotel  in  which  he  lived,  and  the  bones  were  those 
of  some  innocent  lamb,  that  a  careless  cook  had  some  time 
ago  flung  into  that  receptacle.  I  honor  geology,  but  I  claim 
it  is  yet  a  very  imperfect  science,  and  even  with  all  its  im- 
perfections I  liavq  yet  to  find  a  solitary  principle  or  fact 
hat  geology  has  laid  down  that  contradicts  one  word  of 
the  five  books  of  Moses. 

A  Mistake  of  Ingersoll,  Tom  Paine  &  Co.  Corrected — Conclusion. 

I  allude  to  one  more  of  the  Mosaic  facts  that  is  assailed 
by  the  opponents  of  the  Gospel.  It  is  a  difficulty  which 
Mr.  Ingersoll  recently  brought  forward  in  that  remarkable 
production  of  his,  as  something  which  he  had  discovered; 
but  Bishop  Colenso,  whom  the  Church  of  England  some 
thirty  years  ago  sent  out  among  the  Zulus,  dwelt  upon  it 
long  ago,  and  even  before  his  time,  Tom  Paine  had  made 
it  his  weapon  against  the  truthfulness  of  the  Pentateuch. 
It  is  simply  this:  \Ve  are  told  that  the  children  of  Israel, 
according  to  the  Bible,  were  in  the  land  of  Egypt,  in  cap- 
tivity, two  hundred  and  fifteen  years.  There  went  down 


104  MISTAKES  OF  INGERSOLL. 

with  Jacob  and  his  sons,  their  wives  and  children,  seventy 
souls  in  all.  But  the  Exodus  finds  in  the  army  of  Israel 
six  hundred  thousand  fighting  men,  involving  a  total  of 
men,  women  and  children  which  could  not  have  been  less 
than  two  or  three  millions,  and  it  is  declared  that  such  an 
increase  is  utterly  unparalleled  in  the  annals  of  history. 

ur  mathematicians  have  figured  it  all  out  to  their  satis- 
faction. Now,  I  want  you  to  observe  what  a  tissue  of 
blunders  make  up  this  opposition  to  this  Great  Book.  First 
of  all  turn  back  to  the  life  of  Abraham,  the  ancestor  of 
Jacob,  and  you  there  discover  that  a  Hebrew  family  did 
not  consist  merely  of  the  parents  and  children.  The  ser- 
vants were  a  part  of  the  Hebrew  household,  and  God  dis- 
tinctly made  His  commands  imperative  and  unavoidable 
upon  Abraham,  that  every  male  youth  born  in  his  house 
should  receive  the  seal  of  circumcision.  He  therefore 
became  a  participator  in  the  Abrahamic  covenant.  Nay, 
more,  if  he  bought  a  servant  he  had  to  be  brought  into  the 
covenant  of  circumcision.  God  insists'upon  this,  and  thus 
every  servant  of  every  Hebrew  household  became  a  He- 
brew, and  was  reckoned  in  the  family  into  which  he  was 
adopted.  Away  back  in  the  time  of  Abraham,  if  you  take 
up  the  Book  of  Genesis  you  will  iind  he  had  so  many  of 
these  servants  born  in  his  own  household,  that  three  hundred 
and  eighteen  of  them,  able-bodied  men,  soldiers,  followed 
him  to  battle,  and  when  Jacob,  in  the  one  hundred  and 
thirtieth  year  of  his  age,  went  down  into  the  land  of  Egypt 
the  three  hundred  and  eighteen  of  Abraham's  day  surely 
must  have  multiplied  into  thousands. 

The  Pentateuch,  it  is  true,  gives  only  the  formal  list  of 
Jacob's  sons,  their  wives  and  their  children.  There  is  no 
formal  mention  of  this  vast  crowd  of  attendants,  who,  not- 
withstanding ns  part  of  the  family,  must  have  entered  into 
the  land  of  Egypt  with  them.  Thus,  at  the  very  rate  of 


BISHOP  CHENEY'S  HE  PLY.  10> 

increase  that  the  tables  of  the  census  of  the  United  States 
to-day  display,  these  thousands  might  have  easily  amounted 
to  three  millions  in  two  hundred  and  fifteen  years. 

I  am  not  through  with  this  stronghold  of  the  enemies  of 
the  Pentateuchv  As  I  study  it  seems  to  me  that  I  never 
knew  a  ghost  to  vanish  into  thinner  air.  I  v/ould  like  to- 
know  where  or  how  the  critics  learned  that  Israel  was  in 
bondage  in  the  land  of  Egypt  two  hundred  and  fifteen  years. 
Why,  they  learned  in  precisely  the  way  that  they  learned 
that  Moses  said  this  earth  was  made  just  dx  thousand  years, 
ago.  They  have  taken  up  certain  genealogies  and  specula- 
tions of  commentators.  They  have  taken  up  the  calcula- 
tions of  Hales  and  others,  and  they  have  regarded  them  as 
infallible.  They  have  never  turned  to  the  twelfth  chapter 
of  Exodus,  and  I  find  there  the  statement  given  with  pre- 
cision that  admits  of  no  question  that  the  sojourn  of  the 
children  of  Israel  in  Egypt  was  four  hundred  and  thirty 
years:  "  And  it  came  to  pass,  at  the  end  of  four  hundred 
and  thirty  years,  within  the  self-same  day  it  carne  to  pass 
that  all  the  hosts  of  the  Lord  came  out  of  the  land  of 
Egypt."  Long  before  that,  God  had  told  Abraham  that  his 
seed  should  be  strangers  in  a  land  that  was  not  theirs,  and 
that  they  should  afflict  them  four  hundred  years.  And  tho 
Jews  so  understood  it,  as  shown  by  the  fact  that  in  the  New 
Testament  Stephen  declares  that  God  told  the  father  of  tho 
faithful  that  his  seed  should  sojourn  in  a  strange  land,  and 
they  should  bring  them  into  bondage  and  evil  entreat  thorn, 
four  hundred  years.  Now,  if  but  seventy  had  gone  down 
with  Jacob  into  Egypt,  an  increase  to  two  or  three  or  even 
four  millions  in  four  and  a  half  centuries  would  have  been 
no  more  than  what  is  paralleled  by  the  history  of  every 
race  on  the  surface  of  the  globe. 

In  Italy,  three  hundred  years  ago,  when  men  were  wild 
over  the  discovery  of  Galileo's  telescope,  there  was  one 
philosopher  who  refused  to  look  through  the  tube  that 
pierced  the  vail  of  the  starry  worlds,  and  when  he  was  asked 
the  reason,  "I  am  afraid,"  he  said,  ''that  I  should  beli.eve 
Galileo's  theory  of  the  planetary  motion."  My  brethren, 
look  into  the  telescope  of  revelation.  To  know  it,  to  study 
it,  is  to  find  tho  very  truth  of  God. 


INGERSOLL'S  LECTURE 

ON 

SKULLS, 

AND  HIS 

REPLIES  TO  PROF.  SAVING,  DR.  RYDER,  DR.  HERFORD, 
DR.  COLLIER,  AND  OTHER  CRITICS. 


REPRINTED    PROM  "THE    CHICAGO    TIMES.' 


LADIES  AND  GENTLEMEN:  Man  advances  just  in  the  proportion  that 
he  mingles  his  thoughts  with  his  labor — just  in  the  proportion  that  he 
takes  advantage  of  the  forces  of  nature;  just  in  proportion  as  he  loses 
«uperstition  and  gains  confidence  i:i  himself.  Man  advances  as  he 
ceases  to  fear  the  gods  and  learns  to  love  his  fellow-men.  It  is  all,  in 
my  judgment,  a  question  of  intellectual  development.  Tell  mo  "the 
religion  of  any  man  and  I  will  tell  you  the  degree  he  marki  on  the 
intellectual  thermometer  of  the  world.  It  is  a  simple  question  of  brain. 
Those  among  us  who  are  the  nearest  barbarism  have  a  barbarian  religion. 
Those  who  are  nearest  civilization  have  the  least  superstition.  It  is,  I 
say,  a  simple  question  of  brain,  and  I  want,  in  the  first  place,  to  lay  the 
foundation  to  prove  that  assertion. 

/  A  little  while  ago  I  saw  models  of  nearly  everything  that  man  has 
made.  I  saw  models  of  all  the  water  craft,  from  the  rude  dug-out  in 
which  floated  a  naked  savage  —  one  of  our  ancestors  —  a  naked  savage, 
with  teeth  twice  as  long  as  his  forehead  was  high,  with  a  spoonful  of 
brains  in  the  back  of  his  orthodox  head  —  I  saw  models  of  all  the  water 
craft  of  the  world,  from  that  dug-out  up  to  a  man-of-war  that  carries  a 
hundred  guns  and  miles  of  canvas ;  from  that  dug-out  to  the  steamship 

107 


, 


108  MISTAKES  OF  INGERSOLL. 

that  turns  its  brave  prow  from  the  port  of  New  York,  with  a  compass 
like  a  conscience,  crossing  three  thousand  miles  of  billows  without  miss- 
ing a  tlirob  or  beat  of  its  mighty  iron  heart  from  shore  to  shore.  And  I 
saw  at  llic  sumo  lime  the  paintings  of  the  world,  from  the  rude  daub  of 
yellow  mud  to  the  landscapes  that  enrich  palaces  and  adorn  houses  of 
what  were  once  called  t!ie  common  people.  I  saw  also  their  sculpture, 
from  the  rude  god  wi;h  four  legs,  a  half  dozen  arms,  several  noses,  and 
two  or  three  rows  of  cars,  and  one  1  tile,  contemptible,  brainless  head, 
up  t  >  the  figures  of  to-day, — to  the  marbles  that  genius  has  clad  in  such 
a  personality  that  it  seems  almost  impudent  to  touch  them  without  an 
introduction.  I  saw  their  books — books  written  upon  the  skins  of  wild 
beasts — upon  shoulder-blades  of  sheep — books  written  upon  leaves,  upon 
bark,  up  to  the  splendid  volumes  that  enrich,  the  libraries  of  our  day. 
When  I  speak  of  libraries  I  think  of  the  remark  of  Plato:  "A  house  that 
has  a  library  in  it  has  a  soul." 

I  saw  at  the  same  time  the  offensive  weapons  that  man  has  made,  from 
a  club,  such  as  was  gra«pcd  by  that  same  savage  when  he  crawled  from 
his  den  in  the  ground  and  hunted  a  snake  for  his  dinner:  from  that  club 
to  the  boomerang,  to  the  sword,  to  the  cross-bow,  to  the  blunderbuss,  to 
the  flint-lock,  to  the  cap-lock,  to  the  needle-gun,  up  to  a  cannon  cast  by 
Krupp,  capable  of  hurling  aball  weighing  two  thousand  pounds  through 
eighteen  inches  of  solid  steel.  I  saw,  too,  the  armor  from  the  shell  of  a 
turtle  that  one  of  our  brave  ancestors  lashed  upon  his  breast  when  ho 
went  to  fight  for  his  country;  the  skin  of  a  porcupine,  dried  with  the 
quills  on,  which  this  same  savage  pulled  over  his  orthodox  head,  up  to 
the  shirts  of  mail  that  were  worn  in  the  middle  ages,  that  laughed  at  tho 

SO  of  the  sword  and  defied  the  point  of  the  spear;  up  to  a  monitor 
lad  ia  complete  steel.  And  I  say  orthodox  not  only  in  the  matter  of 
religion,  but  in  everything.  Whoever  has  quit  growing  he  is  orthodox, 
wh'ethcr  in  art,  politics,  religion,  philosophy — no  matter  what.  Whoever 
thinks  ho  has  f  mnd  it  all  out  he  is  orthodox.  Orthodoxy  is  that  which 
rots,  and  heresy  ii  that  which  grows  forever.  Orthodoxy  is  the  night 
of  tlic  past,  full  oflhc  darkness  of  superstition,  and  heresy  is  the  eternal 
coming  day,  the  light  of  which  strikes  the  grand  foreheads  of  the  intel- 
lectual pioneers  of  tho  world.  I  saw  their  implements  of  agriculture, 
from  the  p!ow  made  of  a  crooked  slick,  ntttached  to  the  horn  of  an  ox 
by  some  twisted  straw,  with  which  our  ancestors  scraped  the  earth,  and 
fro::i  tliv.t  to  tho  agricul:ural  implements  of  this  generation,  that  mako 
it  possible  for  a  man  to  cultivate  tho  soil  without  being  an  ignoramus. 
(  la  the  old  time  there  was  but  one  crop;  and  when  the  rain  did  not 
come  in  answer  to  the  pmycr  of  hypocrites  a  famine  came  and  people 
fell  upon  their  knees.  At  that  time  tliey  were  full  of  superstition.  They 
were  frightened  all  the  lime  for  four  that  some  god  would  be  enraged  at 


8KULL8  AND  REPLIES.  109 

his  poor,  hapless,  feeble  and  starving  children.  J?ut  now,  instead  of 
depending  upon  one  crop  they  have  several,  and  if  there  is  nut  rain 
enough  for  one  there  may  be  enough  for  another.  And  if  the  frosts  kill 
all,  we  have  railroads  and  steamships  enough  to  bring  what  we  need 
from  some  other  part  of  the  world.  Since  man  has  found  out  some-\ 
thing  about  agriculture,  the  gods  have  retired  from  the  business  of  pro-) 
ducing  famines. 

I  saw  at  the  same  time  their  musical  instruments,  from  the  tom-tom 
— that  is,  a  hoop  with  a  couple  of  strings  of  raw-hide  drawn  across  it — 
/from  that  tom-tom,  up  to  the  instruments  we  have  to-day,  that  make 
I  the  common  air  blossom  with  melody,  and  I  said  to  myself  there  is  a 
vregular  advancement.    I  saw  at  the  same  time  a  row  of  human  skulls, 
from  the  lowest  skull  that  has  been  found,  the  Neanderthal  skull —  — 
skulls  from  Central  Africa,  skulls  from  the  bushuicn  of  Australia — 
skulls  from  the  farthest  isles  of  the  Pacific  Sea — up  to  the  best  skulls  of 
the  last  generation — and  I  noticed  that  there  was  the  same  difference 
between  those  skulls  that  there  was  between  the  products  of  those  skulls,  •*- 
and  I  said  to  n:y -elf:     "After  all,  it  i.s  a  simple  question  of  intellectual  \ 
•development."    There  was  the  same  difference  between  those  skulls,  the    I 
lowest  and  highest  skulls,  that  there  was  between  the  dug-out  and  the  / 
man-of-war  and  the  steamship,  between  the  club  and  the  Krupp  gun,  / 
between  the  yellow  daub  and  the  landscape,  between  the  tom-tom  and/ 
an  opera  by  Verdi.    The  first  and  lowest  skull  in  this  row  was  the  den 
in  which  crawled  the  base  and  meaner  instincts  of  mankind,  and  the 
last  was  a  temple  in  which  dwelt  joy,  liberty  and  love.    And  I  said  to 
myself,  it  is  all  a  question  of  intellectual  development. 

Man  has  advanced  just  as  he  has  mingled  his  thought  with  his  labor. 
As  he  has  grown  he  has  taken  advantage  of  the  forces  of  nature ;  first  of 
the  moving  wind,  then  of  falling  water,  and  finally  of  steam.  From 
one  step  to  another  he  has  obtained  better  houses,  better  clothes,  and 
better  books,  and  he  h-.is  done  it  by  holding  out  every  incentive  to  the 
ingenious  to  produce  them.  The  world  has  said,  give  us  better  clubs 
and  guns  and  cannons  with  which  to  kill  our  fellow  Christians.  And 
whoever  will  give  us  better  weapons  and  better  music,  and  better  houses 
to  live  in,  we  will  robe  him  in  wealth,  crown  him  in  honor,  and  render 
his  name  deathless.  Every  incentive  was  held  out  to  every  human  being 
to  improve  these  things,  and  that  is  the  reason  we  have  advanced  in  all 
mechanical  arts.  But  that  gentleman  in  the  dug-out  not  only  had  his 
ideas  about  politics,  mechanics,  and  agriculture;  he  had  his  ideas  also 
about  religion.  His  idea  about  politics  was  "  right  makes  might."  It 
will  be  thousands  of  years,  may  be,  before  mankind  will  believe  in  the 
saying  that  "right  makes  might."  He  had  his  religion.  That  low 
skull  was  a  devil  factory.  He  believed  in  Hell,  and  the  belief  was  aeon- 


110  MISTAKES  OF  INOERSOLL. 

/isolation  to  him.  He  could  see  the  waves  of  God's  wrath  dashing  against 
the  rocks  of  dark  damnation.  He  could  see  tossing  in  the  white-caps 

'the  f.ices  of  women,  and  stretching  above  the  crests  the  dimpled  hands 

of  children;  and  he  regarded  these  things  as  the  justice  and  mercy  of 

God.    And  all  to-day  who  believe  in  this  eternal  punishment  are  the 

barbarians  of  the  nineteenth  century.    That  man  believed  in  a  devil, 

too,  that  had  a  long  tail  terminating  with  a  fiery  dart;  that  had  wings 

like  a  bat — a  devil  that  had  a  cheerful  habit  of  breathing  brimstone, 

that  had  a  cloven  foot,  such  as  some  orthodox  clergymen  seem  to  think 

I  have.    And  there  has  not  been  a  patentable  improvement  made  upon 

\  f\    /that  devil  in  all  the  years  since.    The  moment  you  drive  the  devil  out 

(    >  /  of  theology,  there  is  nothing  left  worth  speaking  of.    The  moment  they 

.  *  I  drop  the  devil,  away  goes  atonement.    The  moment  they  kill  the  devil, 

\heir  whole  scheme  of  salvation  has  lost  all  of  its  interest  for  mankind. 
You  must  keep  the  devil  and  you  must  keep  Hell.  You  must  keep  the 
devil,  because  with  no  devil  no  priest  is  necessary.  Now,  all  I  ask  is 
this — the  same  privilege  to  improve  upon  his  religion  as  upon  his  dug- 
out, and  that  is  what  I  am  going  to  do,  the  best  I  can.  No  matter  what 
church  you  belong  to,  or  what  church  belongs  to  us.  Let  us  be  honor 
bright  and  fair. 

/  I  want  to  ask  you :    Suppose  the  king,  if  there  was  one,  and  the  priest 
if  there  was  one  at  that  time,  had  told  these  gentlemen  in  the  dug-out: 

(  "  That  dug-out  is  the  best  boat  that  can  ever  be  built  by  man ;  the  pattern 
of  that  came  from  on  high,  from  the  great  God  of  storm  and  flood,  and 
any  man  who  says  he  can  improve  it  by  putting  a  stick  in  the  middle 

I  of  it  and  a  rag  on  the  stick,  is  an  infidel,  and  shall  be  burned  at  tho 
stake;"  what,  in  your  judgment — honor  bright— would  have  been  the 
effect  upon  the  circumnavigation  of  the  globe?  Suppose  the  king,  if 
there  was  one,  and  the  priest,  if  there  was  one — and  I  presume  there 
was  a  priest,  because  it  was  a  very  ignorant  age — suppose  this  king  and 

I  priest  had  said:  "The  tom-toin  is  the  most  beautiful  instrument  of 
music  of  which  any  man  can  conceive ;  that  is  the  kind  of  music  they 
have  in  Heaven;  an  angel  sitting  upon  the  edge  of  a  glorified  cloud, 
golden  in  the  setting  sun,  playing  upon  that  tom-tom,  became  so  enrap- 
tured so  entranced  with  her  own  music,  that  in  a  kind  of  ecstasy  she 
dropped  it — that  is  how  we  obtained  it;  and  any  man  who  says  it  can  bo 
improved  by  putting  a  back  and  front  to  it,  and  four  strings,  and  a  bridge, 
and  getting  a  bow  of  hair  with  rosin,  is  a  blaspheming  wretch,  and  shall 
die  the  death," — I  ask  you,  what  effect  would  that  have  had  upon  music  r 
If  that  course  had  been  pursued,  would  the  human  ears,  in  your  judg- 
ment, ever  have  been  enriched  with  the  divine  symphonies  of  Beethoven  t 
Suppose  the  king,  if  there  was  one,  nnd  the  priest,  had  said:  "That 
crooked  sticks  is  the  best  plow  that  can  be  invented ;  the  pattern  of  that 


SKULLS  AJfD  REPLIES.  lit 

plow  was  given  to  a  pious  farmer  in  an  exceedingly  holy  dream,  and 
that  twisted  straw  is  the  neplus  ultra  of  all  twisted  things,  and  nny  maa 
who  says  ho  can  make  Tin  improvement  upon  that  plow,  is  an  atheist;" 
what,  in  your  judgment,  would  have  been  the  effect  upon  the  science  of 
agriculture  ? 

Now,  all  I  ask  is  the  same  privilege  to  improve  upon  his  religion  as  \ 
upon  his  mechanical  arts.  Why  don't  we  go  back  to  that  period  to  get  ) 
the  telegraph  ?  Because  they  were  barbarians.  And  shall  we  go  to  bar- /\  a 
barians  to  get  our  religion?  What  is  religion?  Religion  simplj^  \  C 
embraces  the  duty  of  man  to  man.  Religion  is  simply  the  science  of 
human  duty  and  the  duty  of  man  to  man— that  is  what  it  is.  It  is  the  J 
highest  science  of  all.  And  all  other  sciences  are  as  nothing,  except  as 
they  contribute  to  the  happiness  of  man.  The  science  of  religion  is  the 
highest  of  all,  embracing  all  others.  And  shall  we  go  to  the  barbarians 
to  learn  the  science  of  sciences  ?  The  nineteenth  century  knows  more 
about  religion  than  all  the  centuries  dead.  There  is  more  real  charity 
hi  the  world  to-day  than  ever  before.  There  is  more  thought  to-day  than 
ever  before.  Woman  is  glorified  to-day  as  she  never  was  before  in  the 
history  of  the  world.  There  are  more  happy  families  now  than  ever 
before — more  children  treated  as  though  they  were  tender  blossoms  than 
as  though  they  were  brutes  than  in  any  other  time  or  nation.  Religion 
is  simply  the  duty  a  man  owes  to  man ;  and  when  you  fall  upon  j-our 
knees  and  pray  for  something  you  know  not  of,  you  neither  benefit  the 
one  you  pray  for  nor  yourself.  One  ounce  of  restitution  is  worth  a  mil- 
lion of  repentances  anywhere,  and  a  man  will  get  along  faster  by  help- 
ing himself  a  minute  than  by  praying  ten  years  for  somebody  to  help 
him.  Suppose  you  were  coming  along  the  street,  and  found  a  party  of 
men  and  women  on  their  knees  praying  to  a  bank,  and  you  asked  them, 
"  Have  any  of  you  borrowed  any  money  of  this  bank  ?"  "  No,  but  our 
fathers,  they,  to»,  prayed  to  this  bank."  "  Did  they  ever  get  any  ?"  "  No, 
not  ttiat  we  ever  heard  of."  I  would  tell  them  to  get  up.  It  is  easier  to 
earn  it,  and  it  is  far  more  manly. 

Our  fathers  in  the  "  good  old  times," — and  the  best  that  I  can  say  of 
the  "  good  old  times  "  is  that  they  are  gone,  and  the  best  I  can  say  of  the 
good  old  people  that  lived  in  them  is  that  they  are  gone,  too — believed 
that  you  made  a  man  think  your  way  by  force.  Well,  you  can't  do  it. 
There  is  a  splendid  something  in  man  that  says:  "I  won't;  I  won't 
be  driven."  But  our  fathers  thought  men  could  be  driven.  They  tried 
it  in  the  "  good  old  times."  I  used  to  read  about  the  manner  in  which 
the  early  Christians  made  converts— how  they  impressed  upon  the  world 
the  idea  that  God  loved  them.  I  have  read  it,  but  i  t  didn't  burn  into  my 
soul.  I  didn't  think  much  about  it — I  heard  so  much  about  being  fried 
forever  in  Hell  that  it  didn't  seem  so  bad  to  burn  a  few  minutes.  I  love 


113  MISTAKES  OF  INOERSOLL. 

liberty  and  I  hate  all  persecutions  in  the  name  of  God.    I  never  appre- 
ciated the  infamies  that  have  been  committed  in  the  name  of  religion 

!    until  I  saw  the  iron  arguments  that  Christians  used.    I  saw,  for  instance, 

1  the  thumb-screw,  two  little  innocent  looking  pieces  of  iron,  armed  with 
some  little  protuberances  on  the  inner  side  to  keep  it  from  slipping 
down,  and  through  each  end  a  screw,  and  when  some  man  had  made 
some  trifling  remark,  as,  for  instance,  that  he  never  believed  that  God 
/made  a  fish  swallow  a  man  to  keep  him  from  drowning,  or  something 

/  like  that,  or,  for  instance,  that  he  didn't  believe  in  baptism.  You  know 
^  /  that  is  very  wrong.  You  can  see  for  yourselves  the  justice  of  damning 
a  man  if  his  parents  had  happened  to  baptize  him  in  the  wrong  way — 
God  can  not  afford  to  break  a  rule  or  two  to  save  all  the  men  in  the 
world.  I  happened  to  be  in  the  company  of  some  Baptist  ministers 
once— you  may  wonder  how  I  happened  to  be  in  such  company  as  that — 
and  one  of  them  asked  me  what  I  thought  about  baptism.  Well,  I  told 
them  I  hadn't  thought  much  about  it — that  I  had  never  sat  up  nights 
on  that  question.  I  said :  "  Baptism — with  soap — is  a  good  institution." 
Now,  when  some  man  had  said  some  trifling  thing  like  that,  they  put 
this  thumb-screw  on  him,  and  iii  the  name  of  universal  benevolence  and 
for  the  love  of  God — man  has  never  persecuted  man  for  the  love  of  man ; 
man  hai  never  persecuted  another  for  the  love  of  charity — it  is  always 
for  the  love  of  something  ho  calls  God,  and  every  man's  idea  of  God  is 
(\  /  1m  own  idea.  If  there  is  an  infinite  God,  and  there  may  be — I  don't 

i  know — there  may  be  a  million  for  all  I  know — I  hope  there  is  more 
than  one — one  seems  so  lonesome.  They  kept  turning  this  down,  and 
when  this  was  done,  most  men  would  say:  "  I  will  recant."  I  think  I 
•would.  There  is  not  much  of  the  martyr  about  me.  I  would  have  told 
them:  "  Now  you  write  it  down,  and  I  will  sign  it.  You  may  have 
one  God  or  a  million,  one  Hell  or  a  million.  You  stop  that — I  am 
tried." 

Do  you  know,  sometimes  I  have  thought  that  all  the  hypocrites  in  the 
world  are  not  worth  one  drop  of  honest  blood.  I  am  sorry  that  any 
/good  man  ever  died  for  religion.  I  would  rather  let  them  advance  a 
little  easier.  It  is  too  bad  to  see  a  good  man  sacrificed  for  a  lot  of  wild 
beasts  and  cattle.  But  there  is  now  and  then  a  man  who  would  not 
swerve  the  breadth  of  a  hair.  There  was  now  and  then  a  sublime  heart 
willing  to  die  for  an  intellectual  conviction,  and  had  it  not  been  for  these 
men  wo  would  liavo  been  wild  beasts  and  savages  to-day.  There  were 
some  incn  who  would  not  take  it  back,  and  had  it  not  been  for  a  few 
such  brave,  heroic  souls  in  every  age  we  would  have  been  cannibals, 
with  pictures  of  wild  beasts  tattooed  upon  our  breasts,  dancing  around 
some  dried-snake  fetish.  And  so  they  turned  it  down  to  the  last  thread 
of  agony,  and  threw  the  victim  into  some  dungeon,  where,  in  the  throb- 


SKULLS  AND  REPLIES.  113 

bing  silence  and  darkness,  he  might  suffer  the  agonies  of  the  fabled  \       9 
damned.    This  was  done  in  the  name  of  love,  in  the  name  of  mercy,  in    * 
the  name  of  the  compassionate  Christ.    And  the  men  that  did  it  are  the 
men  that  made  our  Bible  for  us. 

I  saw,  too,  at  the  same  time,  the  collar  of  torture.  Imagine  a  circle  of 
iron,  and  on  the  inside  a  hundred  points  almost  as  sharp  as  needles. 
This  argument  was  fastened  about  the  throat  of  the  sufferer.  Then  he 
could  not  walk  nor  sit  down,  nor  stir  without  the  neck  being  punctured 
by  these  points.  In  a  little  while  the  throat  would  begin  to  swell,  and 
suffocation  would  end  the  agonies  of  that  man.  This  man,  it  may  be, 
had  committed  the  crime  of  saying,  with  tears  upon  his  cheeks,  "  I  do 
not  believe  that  God,  the  father  of  us  all,  will  damn  to  eternal  perdition 
any  of  the  children  of  men."  And  that  was  done  to  convince  the  world 
that  God  so  loved  the  world  that  He  died  for  us.  That  was  in  order 
that  people  might  hear  the  glad  tidings  of  great  joy  to  all  people. 

I  saw  another  instrument,  called  the  scavenger's  daughter.    Imagine 
a  pair  of  shears  with  handles,  not  only  where  they  now  are,  but  at  the 
points  as  well  and  just  above  the  pivot  that  unites  the  blades  a  circle  of 
iron.    In  the  upper  handles  the  hands  would  be  placed ;  in  the  lower, 
the  feet;  and  through  the  iron  ring,  at  the  centre,  the  head  of  the  victim 
would  be  forced,  and  in  that  position  the  man  would  be  thrown  upon 
the  earth,  and  the  strain  upon  the  muscle  would  produce  such  agony » 
that  insanity  took  pity.    And  this  was  done  to  keep  people  from  going  \ 
to  Hell — to  convince  that  man  that  he  had  made  a  mistake  in  his  logic —  I 
and  it  was  done,  too,  by  Protestants — Protestants  that  persecuted  to  the   ' 
extent  of  their  power,  and  that  is  as  much  as  Catholicism  ever  did.  * 
They  would  persecute  now  if  they  had  the  power.    There  is  not  a  man 
in  this  vast  audience  who  will  say  that  the  church  should  have  temporal 
power.    There  is  not  one  of  you  but  what  believes  in  the  eternal  divorce 
of  church  and  state.    Is  it  possible  that  the  ouly  people  who  are  fit  to 
go  to  heaven  are  the  only  people  not  fit  to  rule  mankind  ? 

I  saw  at  the  same  time  the  rack.  This  was  a  box  like  the  bed  of  a 
wagon,  with  a  windlass  at  each  end,  and  ratchets  to  prevent  slipping. 
Over  each  windlass  went  chains,  and  when  some  man  had,  for  instance, 
denied  the  doctrine  of  the  trinity,  a  doctrine  it  is  necessary  to  believe  in 
-order  to  get  to  Heaven  —  but,  thank  the  Lord,  you  don't  have  to  under- 
stand it.  This  man  merely  denied  that  three  times  one  was  one,  or 
maybe  he  denied  that  there  was  ever  any  Son  in  the  world  exactly  as 
:>ld  as  his  father,  or  that  there  ever  was  a  boy  eternally  older  than  his 
mother — then  they  put  that  man  on  the  rack.  Nobody  had  ever  been 
persecuted  for  calling  God  bad — it  has  always  been  for  calling  him  good. 
When  I  stand  here  to  say  that,  if  there  is  a  Hell,  God  is  a  fiend;  they 
say  that  is  very  bad.  They  say  I  am  trying  to  tear  down  the  institu- 


114  MISTAKES  OF  INGERSOLL. 

tions  of  public  virtue.  But  let  me  tell  you  one  thing ;  there  is  no  refor- 
!  mation  in  fear  —  you  can  scare  a  man  so  that  he  won't  do  it  sometimes, 
j  but  I  will  swear  you  can't  scare  him  so  bad  that  he  won't  want  to  do  it. 
\ Then  they  put  this  man  on  the  rack  and  priests  began  turning  these 
levers,  and  kept  turning  until  the  ankles,  the  hips,  the  shoulders,  the 
elbows,  the  wrists,  and  all  the  joints  of  the  victim  were  dislocated,  and 
he  was  wet  with  agony,  and  standing  by  was  a  physician  to  feel  his- 
pulse.  What  for  ?  To  save  his  life  ?  Yes.  In  mercy  ?  No.  But  in 
order  that  they  might  have  the  pleasure  of  racking  him  once  more. 
And  this  was  the  Christian  spirit.  This  was  done  in  the  name  of  civili- 
zation, in  the  name  of  religion,  and  all  these  wretches  who  did  it  died  in 
peace.  There  is  not  an  orthodox  preacher  in  the  city  that  has  not  a. 
respect  for  every  one  of  them.  As,  for  instance,  for  John  Calvin,  who- 
was  a  murderer  and  nothing  but  a  murderer,  who  would  have  disgraced 
an  ordinary  gallows  by  being  hanged  upon  it  These  men  when  they 
came  to  die  were  not  frightened.  God  did  not  send  any  devils  into 
their  death-rooms  to  make  mouths  at  them.  He  reserved  them  for 
Voltaire,  who  brought  religious  liberty  to  Prance.  He  reserved  them 
for  Thomas  Paine,  who  did  more  for  liberty  than  all  the  churches.  But 
all  the  inquisitors  died  with  the  white  hands  of  pence  folded  over  the 
breast  of  piety.  And  when  they  died,  the  room  was  filled  with  the  rustle 
of  the  wings  of  angels,  waiting  to  bear  the  wretches  to  Heaven. 

When  I  read  these  frightful  books  it  seems  to  me  sometimes  as  though 
I  had  suffered  all  these  things  myself.  It  seems  sometimes  as  though  I 
had  stood  upon  the  shore  of  exile,  and  gazed  with  tearful  eyes  toward 
home  and  native  land;  it  seems  to  me  as  though  I  had  been  staked  out 
upon  the  sands  of  the  sea,  and  drowned  by  the  inexorable,  advancing 
tide ;  as  though  my  nails  had  been  torn  from  my  hands,  and  into  the 
bleeding  quick  needles  had  been  thrust ;  as  though  my  feet  had  been 
crushed  in  iron  boots;  as  though  I  had  been  chained  in  the  cell  of  the 
Inquisition,  and  listened  with  dying  ears  for  the  coming  footsteps  of 
release;  as  though  I  had  stood  upon  the  scaffold  and  saw  the  glittering 
axe  fall  upon  me;  as  though  I  had  been  upon  the  rack  and  had  seen, 
bending  above  me,  the  white  faces  of  hypocrite  priests;  as  though  I 
had  been  taken  from  my  fireside,  from  my  wife  and  children,  taken  to 
the  public  square,  chained;  as  though  fagots  had  been  piled  about  me; 
as  though  the  flames  had  climbed  around  my  limbs  and  scorched  my 
eyes  to  blindness,  and  as  though  my  ashes  had  been  scattered  to  the  four 
winds  by  all  the  countless  hands  of  hate.  And,  while  I  so  feel,  I  swear 
that  while  I  live  I  will  do  what  little  I  can  to  augment  the  liberties  of 
man,  woman  and  child.  I  denounce  slavery  and  superstition  every- 
where. I  believe  in  liberty,  and  happiness,  and  love,  nud  joy  in  this 
•world.  I  am  amazed  that  any  man  ever  had  the  impudence  to  try  and 


SKULLS  AND  REPLIES.  115 

do  another  man's  thinking.  I  have  just  as  good  a  right  to  talk  about 
theology  as  a  minister.  If  they  all  agreed  I  might  admit  it  was  a 
science,  but  as  they  all  disagree,  and  the  more  they  study  the  wider  they 
get  apart,  I  may  be  permilted  to  suggest  it  is  not  a  science.  When  no 
two  will  tell  you  the  road  to  Heaven — that  is,  giving  you  the  same  route 
— ?nd  if  you  would  inquire  of  them  all,  you  would  just  give  up  trying 
to  go  there,  and  say:  "  I  may  as  well  stay  where  I  am,  and  let  the  Lord 
come  to  me." 

Do  you  know  that  this  world  has  not  been  fit  for  a  lady  and  gentle- 
man to  live  in  for  twenty-five  years,  just  on  account  of  slavery.  It  was 
not  until  the  year  1808  that  Great  Britain  abolished  the  slave  trade,  and 
up  to  that  time  her  judges,  her  priests  occupying  her  pulpits,  the  mem- 
bers of  the  royal  family,  owned  stock  in  the  slave  ships,  and  luxuriated 
upon  the  profits  of  piracy  and  murder.  It  was  not  until  the  same  year 
that  the  United  States  of  America  abolished  the  slave  trade  between  this 
and  other  countries,  but  carefully  preserved  it  as  between  the  states.  It 
was  not  until  the  28th  day  of  August,  1833,  that  Great  Britain  abolished 
human  slavery  in  her  colonies ;  and  it  was  not  until  the  1st  day  of  Jan- 
uary, 18C3,  that  Abraham  Lincoln,  sustained  by  the  sublime  and  heroic 
North,  rendered  our  flag  pure  as  the  sky  in  which  it  floats.  Abraham 
Lincoln  was,  in  my  judgment,  in  many  respects,  the  grandest  man  ever 
president  of  the  United  States.  Upon  his  monument  these  words  should 
be  written :  "  Here  sleeps  the  only  man  in  the  history  of  the  world,  who, 
having  been  clothed  with  almost  absolute  power,  never  abused  it,  except 
upon  the  side  of  mercy." 

For  two  hundred  years  the  Christians  of  the  United  States  deliberately 
turned  the  cross  of  Christ  into  a  whipping-post.  Christians  bred  hounds 
to  catch  other  Christians.  Let  me  show  you  what  the  Bible  has  done 
for  mankind :  "  Servants,  be  obedient  to  your  masters."  The  only  word 
coming  from  that  sweet  Heaven  was,  "  Servants,  obey  your  masters." 
Frederick  Douglas  told  me  that  he  had  lectured  upon  the  subject  of 
freedom  twenty  years  before  he  was  permitted  to  set  his  foot  in  a  church. 
I  tell  you  the  world  has  not  been  fit  to  live  in  for  twenty-five  years. 
Then  all  the  people  used  to  cringe  and  crawl  to  preachers.  Mr.  Buckle, 
in  his  history  of  civilization,  shows  that  men  were  even  struck  dead  for 
speaking  impolitely  to  a  priest.  God  would  not  stand  it.  See  how  they 
used  to  crawl  before  cardinals,  bishops  and  popes.  It  is  not  so  now. 
Before  wealth  they  bowed  to  the  very  earth,  and  in  the  presence  of  titles 
they  became  abject.  All  this  is  slowly,  but  surely  changing.  We  no 
longer  bow  to  men  simply  because  they  are  rich.  Our  fathers  wor- 
shipped the  golden  calf.  The  worst  you  can  say  of  an  American  now 
is,  he  worships  the  gold  of  the  calf.  Even  the  calf  is  beginning  to  see 
this  distinction. 


116  MISTAKES  OF  INGERSOLL. 

The  time  will  come  when  no  matter  how  much  money  a  man  has,  he 
will  not  be  respected  unless  he  is  using  it  for  the  benefit  of  his  fellow. 
men.  It  will  soon  be  here.  It  no  longer  satisfies  the  ambition  of  a  great 
man  to  be  king  or  emperor.  The  last  Napoleon  was  not  satisfied  with 
being  the  emperor  of  the  French.  lie  was  not  satisfied  with  having  a 
circlet  of  gold  about  his  head.  He  wanted  some  evidence  that  he  had 
something  of  value  within  his  head.  So  he  wrote  the  life  of  Julius 
Caesar,  that  he  might  become  a  member  of  the  French  academy.  The 
emperors,  the  kings,  the  popes,  no  longer  tower  above  their  fellows. 
Compare,  for  instance,  King  William  and  Helmholtz.  The  king  is  one 
of  the  anointed  by  the  Most  High,  as  they  claim — one  upon  whose  head 
has  been  poured  the  divine  petroleum  of  authority.  Compare  this  king 
with  Helmholtz,  who  towers  an  intellectual  Colossus  above  the  crowned 
mediocrity.  Compare  George  Eliot  with  Queen  Victoria.  The  queen 
is  clothed  in  garments  given  her  by  blind  fortune  and  unreasoning 
chance,  while  George  Eliot  wears  robes  of  glory  woven  in  the  loom  of 
her  own  genius.  And  so  it  is  the  world  over.  The  time  is  comingwhen 
a  man  will  be  rated  at  his  real  worth,  and  that  by  his  brain  and  heart. 
We  care  nothing  now  about  an  officer  unless  he  fills  his  place.  No  mat- 
ter if  he  is  president,  if  he  rattles  in  the  place  nobody  cares  anything 
about  him.  I  might  give  you  an  instance  in  point,  but  I  won't.  The 
world  is  getting  better  and  grander  and  nobler  every  day. 

Now,  if  men  have  been  slaves,  if  they  have  crawled  in]the  dust  before 
one  another,  what  shall  I  say  of  women  ?  They  have  been  the  slaves  of 
men.  It  took  thousands  of  ages  to  bring  women  from  abject  slavery  up 
to  the  divine  height  of  marriage.  I  believe  in  marriage.  If  there  is 
any  Heaven  upon  earth  it  is  in  the  family  by  the  fireside,  and  the  famuy 
is  a  unit  of  government.  Without  the  family  relation  is  tender,  pure 
and  true,  civilization  is  impossible.  Ladies,  the  ornaments  you  wear 
upon  your  persons  to-night  are  but  the  souvenirs  of  your  mother's  bond- 
age. The  chains  around  your  necks,  and  the  bracelets  clasped  upon 
your  white  arms  by  the  thrilled  hand  of  love,  have  been  changed  by  the 
wand  of  civilization  from  iron  to  shining,  glittering  gold.  Nearly  every 
civilization  in  this  world  accounts  for  the  devilment  in  it  by  the  crimes 
of  woman.  They  say  woman  brought  all  the  trouble  into  the  world.  1 
don't  care  if  she  did.  I  would  rather  live  in  a  world  full  of  trouble  with 
the  women  I  love,  than  to  live  in  Heaven  with  nobody  but  men.  I  read 
in  a  book  an  account  of  the  creation  of  the  world.  The  book  I  have 
taken  pains  to  say  was  not  written  by  any  God.  And  why  do  I  say  so  ? 
Because  I  can  write  a  far  better  book  myself.  Because  it  is  full  of  bar- 
barisms. Several  ministers  in  this  city  have  undertaken  to  answer  me 
— notably  thoge  who  don't  believe  the  Bible  themselves.  I  want  to  ask 
toeae  m&L  sot  ui*u&.  -  -vJu.'  totn  *•:  ot  '.sur. 


SKULLS  AND  REPLIES.  117 

Every  minister  in  the  City  of  Chicago  that  answers  me,  and  those 
Vho  have  answered  me  had  better  answer  me  again  —  I  want  them  to 
say,  and  without  any  sort  of  evasion  —  without  resorting  to  any  pious 
tricks  —  I  want  them  to  say  whether  they  believe  that  the  Eternal  God 
of  this  universe  ever  upheld  the  crime  of  polygamy.  Say  it  square  and 
fair.  Don't  begin  to  talk  about  that  being  a  peculiar  time,  and  that  God 
was  easy  on  the  prejudices  of  those  old  fellows.  I  want  them  to  answer 
that  question  and  to  answer  it  squarely,  which  they  haven't  done.  Did 
this  God,  which  you  pretend  to  worship,  ever  sanction  the  institution  of 
human  slavery?  Now,  answer  fair?  Don't  slide  around  it.  Don't 
begin  and  answer  what  a  bad  man  I  am,  nor  what  a  good  man  Moses 
was.  Stick  to  the  text.  Do  you  believe  in  a  God  that  allowed  a  man  to 
be  sold  from  his  children  ?  Do  you  worship  such  an  infinite  monster? 
And  if  you  do,  tell  your  congregation  whether  you  are  not  ashamed  to 
admit  it.  Let  every  minister  who  answers  me  again  tell  whether  he 
believes  God  commanded  his  general  to  kill  the  little  dimpled  babe  in 
the  cradle.  Let  him  answer  it.  Don't  say  that  those  were  very  bad 
times.  Tell  whether  He  did  it  or  not,  and  then  your  people  will  know 
wheiher  to  hate  that  God  or  not.  Be  honest.  Tell  them  whether  that 
God  in  war  captured  young  maidens  and  turned  them  over  to  the  soldiers ; 
and  then  ask  the  wives  and  sweet  girls  of  your  congregation  to  get  down 
on  their  knees  and  worship  the  infinite  fiend  that  did  that  thing. 
Answer!  It  is  your  God  I  am  talking  about,  and  if  that  is  what  God 
did,  please  tell  your  congregation  what,  under  the  same  circumstances, 
the  devil  would  have  done.  Don't  tell  your  people  that  is  a  poem. 
Don't  tell  your  people  that  is  pictorial.  That  won't  do.  Tell  your 
people  whether  it  is  true  or  false.  That  is  what  I  want  you  to  do. 

In  this  book  I  have  read  about  God's  making  the  world  and  one  man. 
That  is  all  he  intended  to  make.  The  making  of  woman  was  a  second 
thought,  though  I  am  willing  to  admit  that  as  a  rule  second  thoughts 
are  best.  This  God  made  a  man  and  put  him  in  a  public  park.  In  a 
little  while  He  noticed  that  the  man  got  lonesome ;  then  He  found  He 
had  made  a  mistake,  and  that  He  would  have  to  make  somebody  to  keep 
him  company.  But  having  used  up  all  the  nothing  He  originally  used 
in  making  the  world  and  one  man,  He  had  to  take  a  part  of  a  man  to 
start  a  woman  with.  So  He  causes  sleep  to  fall  on  this  man — now  under- 
stand me,  I  do  not  say  this  story  is  true.  After  the  sleep  had  fallen  on 
this  man  the  Supreme  Being  took  a  rib,  or,  as  the  French  would  call 
it,  a  cutlett,  out  of  him,  and  from  that  He  made  a  woman ;  and  I  am 
willing  to  swear,  taking  into  account  the  amount  and  quality  of  the  raw 
material  used,  this  was  the  most  magnificent  job  ever  accomplished  in 
this  world.  Well,  after  He  got  the  woman  done  she  was  brought  to  the 
man,  not  to  see  how  she  liked  him,  but  to  see  how  he  liked  her.  He 


f 


118  MISTAKES  OF  1NGER80LL. 

liked  her  and  they  started  housekeeping,  and  they  were  told  of  certain 
things  they  might  do  and  of  one  thing  they  could  not  do — and  of  course 
they  did  it  I  would  have  done  it  in  fifteen  minutes,  I  know  it.  There 
wouldn't  have  been  an  apple  on  that  tree  half  an  hour  from  date,  and 
the  limbs  would  have  been  full  of  clubs.  And  then  they  were  turned 
out  of  the  park  and  extra  policemen  were  put  on  to  keep  them  from 
getting  back.  And  then  trouble  commenced  and  we  have  been  at  it  ever 
since.  Nearly  all  of  the  religions  of  this  world  account  for  the  exist- 
ence of  evil  by  such  a  story  as  that. 

Well,  I  read  in  another  book  what  appeared  to  be  an  account  of  the 
same  transaction.  It  was  written  about  four  thousand  years  before  the 
other.  All  commentators  agree  that  the  one  that  was  written  last  was 
the  original,  and  the  one  that  was  written  first  was  copied  from  the  one 
that  was  written  last.  But  I  would  advise  you  all  not  to  allow  your 

(creed  to  be  disturbed  by  a  little  matter  of  four  or  five  thousand  years. 
It  is  a  great  deal  better  to  be  mistaken  in  dates  than  to  go  to  the  devil. 
In  this  other  account  the  Supreme  Brahma  made  up  his  mind  to  make 
the  world  and  a  man  and  woman.  He  made  the  world,  and  he  made 
the  man  and  then  the  woman,  and  put  them  on  the  Island  of  Ceylon. 
According  to  the  account  it  was  the  most  beautiful  island  of  which  man 
can  conceive.  Such  birds,  such  songs,  such  flowers,  and  such  verdure! 
And  the  branches  of  the  trees  were  so  arranged  that  when  the  wind 
swept  through  them  every  tree  was  a  thousand  ^lolian  harps.  Brahma, 
when  he  put  them  there,  s^aid :  "  Let  them  have  a  period  of  courtship, 
for  it  is  my  desire  and  will  that  true  love  should  torcver  precede  mar- 
riage." When  I  read  that,  it  was  so  much  more  beautiful  and  lofiy  than 
the  other,  that  I  said  to  myself:  "  If  either  one  of  these  stories  ever 
turns  out  to  be  true,  I  hope  it  will  be  this  one." 

Then  they  had  their  courtship,  with  the  nightingale  singing  and  the 
stars  shining  and  the  flowers  blooming,  and  they  fell  in  love.  lma<riue 
that  courtship!  No  prospective  fathers  or  mothers-in-law ;  no  prying 
and  gossiping  neighbors;  nobody  to  say,  "Young  ifian,  how  do  you 
expect  to  support  her?"  Nothing  of  tliat  kind— nothing  but  the  night- 
ingale singing  its  song  of  joy  and  pain,  as  though  the  thorn  already 
touched  its  heart.  They  were  married  bv  the  Supreme  Brahma,  and  he 
said  to  them,  "  Remain  here;  you  must  never  leave  this  island."  Well, 
after  a  little  while  the  man — and  his  name  was  Adanii.  and  the  woman's 
name  was  Heva — said  to  Ilcva:  "I  believe  I'll  look  about  a  little." 
He  wanted  to  go  West.  He  went  to  the  western  extremity  of  the  island 
where  there  was  a  liitle  narrow  neek  of  land  connecting  it  with  the 
mainland,  and  the  Devi!,  who  is  always  playing  pranks  with  us,  pro- 
duced a  mirapc,  and  when  he  looked  over  to  the  mainland,  such  hills 
and  vales,  such  dells  and  dales,  such  mountains  crowned  with  snow, 


SKULLS  AND  REPLIES.  119 

such  cataracts  clad  in  bows  of  glory  did  he  see  there,  that  he  went  back 
and  told  Heva :  "  The  country  over  there  is  a  thousand  times  better 
than  this;  let  us  migrate."  bhe,  like  every  other  woman  that  ever 
lived,  said :  "  Let  well  enough  alone ;  we  have  all  we  want ;  let  us  stay 
here."  But  he  said :  "  No,  let  us  go;"  so  she  followed  him,  and  when  ; 
they  came  to  this  narrow  neck  of  land,  he  took  her  on  his  back  like  a 
gentleman,  and  carried  her  over.  But  the  moment  they  got  over  they  , 
heard  a  crash,  and,  looking  back,  discovered  that  this  narrow  neck  of 
land  had  fallen  into  the  sea.  The  mirage  had  disappeared,  and  there 
was  naught  but  rocks  and  sand,  and  then  the  Supreme  Brahma  curse4 
them  both  to  the  lowest  Hell. 

Then  it  was  that  the  man  spoke — and  I  have  liked  him  ever  since  for 
it — "Curse  me,  but  curse  not  her ;  it  was  not  her  fault,  it  was  mine." 
That's  the  kind  of  a  man  to  start  a  world  with.  The  Supreme  Brahma 
said :  "  I  will  save  her  but  not  thee."  And  then  spoke  out  of  her  full- 
ness of  love,  out  of  a  heart  in  which  there  was  love  enough  to  make 
all  her  daughters  rich  in  holy  affection,  and  said:  "If  thou  wilt  not 
spare  him,  spare  neither  me;  I  do  not  wish  to  live  without  him,  I 
love  him."  Then  the  Supreme  Brahma  said — and  I  have  liked  him 
•ever  since  I  read  it — "  I  will  spare  you  both,  and  watch  over  you  and 
your  children  forever."  Honor  bright,  is  that  not  the  better  and 
grander  story  ? 

And  iu  that  same  book  I  find  this:    "  Man  is  strength,  woman  is\ 
beauty;  man  is  courage,  woman  is  love.     When  the  one  man  loves  the  j 
one  woman,  and  the  one  woman  loves  the  one  man,  the  very  angels  / 
leave  Heaven,  and  come  and  sit  in  that  house,  and  sing  for  joy."    In  the  \ 
same  book  this :  "  Blessed  is  that  man,  and  beloved  of  all  the  gods,  who 
is  afraid  of  no  man,  and  of  whom  no  man  is  afraid."    Magnificent  char-    , 
acter!    A  missionary  certainly  ought  to  talk  to  that  man.    And  I  find 
this:  "  Never  will  I  accept  private,  individual  salvation,  but  rather  will 
I  stay  and  work,  strive  and  suffer,  until  every  soul  from  every  star  has 
bc.n  brought  home  to  God."     Compare  that  with  the  Christian  that 
•expects  to  go  to  Heaven  while  the  world  is  rolling  over  Niagara  to  an 
eternal  and  unending  Hell.    So  I  say  that  religion  lays  all  the  crime  and 
troubles  of  this  world  at  the  beautiful  feet  of  woman.    And  then  the 
church  has  the  impudence  to  say  that  it  has  exalted  women.    I  believe 
that  marriage  is  a  perfect  partnership ;  that  woman  has  every  right  that 
man  has — and  one  more — the  right  to  be  protected.    Above  all  men  in 
the  world  I  hate  a  stingy  man — a  man  that  will  make  his  wife  beg  for 
money.    "What  did  you  do  with  the  dollar  I  gave  you  last  week?" 
"And  what  are  you  going  to  do  with  this ?  "    It  is  vile.    No  gentleman 
will  ever  be  satisfied  with  the  love  of  a  beggar  and  a  slave— no  gentle- 
man will  ever  be  satisfied  except  with  the  love  of  an  equal.    What  kind 


120  MISTAKES  OF  1NGERSOLL. 

of  children  does  a  man  expect  to  have  with  a  beggar  for  their  mother? 
A  man  can  not  be  so  poor  but  that  he  can  be  generous,  and  if  you 
only  have  one  dollar  in  the  world  and  you  have  got  to  spend  it,  spend 
it  like  a  lord — spend  it  as  though  it  were  a  dry  leaf,  and  you  the  owner 
of  unbounded  forests — spend  it  as  though  you  had  a  wilderness  of  your 
own.  That's  the  way  to  spend  it. 

C  I  had  rather  be  a  beggar  and  spend  my  last  dollar  like  a  king,  than 
be  a  king  and  spend  my  money  like  a  beggar.  If  it  has  got  to  go  let  it 
go.  And  this  is  my  advice  to  the  poor.  For  you  can  never  be  so  poor 
that  whatever  you  do  you  can't  do  in  a  grand  and  manly  way.  I  hate  a 
cross  man.  What  right  has  a  man  to  assassinate  the  joy  of  life  ?  When 
you  go  home  you  ought  to  go  like  a  ray  of  light — so  that  it  will,  even 
in  the  night,  burst  out  of  the  doors  and  windows  and  illuminate  the 
darkness.  Some  men  think  their  mighty  brains  have  been  in  a  turmoil ; 
they  have  been  thinking  about  who  will  be  Alderman  from  the  Fifth 
Ward ;  they  have  been  thinking  about  politics,  great  and  mighty  ques- 
tions have  been  engaging  their  minds,  they  have  bought  calico  at  five 
cents  or  six,  and  want  to  sell  it  for  seven.  Think  of  the  intellectual 
strain  that  must  have  been  upon  that  man,  and  when  he  gets  home 
everybody  else  in  the  house  must  look  out  for  his  comfort.  A  woman 
who  has  only  taken  care  of  five  or  six  children,  and  one  or  two  of  them 
sick,  has  been  nursing  them  and  singing  to  them,  and  trying  to  make 
one  yard  of  cloth  do  the  work  of  two,  she,  of  course,  is  fresh  and  fine 
and  ready  to  wait  upon  this  gentleman — the  head  of  the  family — the 
boss! , 

I  was  reading  thb  other  day  of  an  apparatus  invented  for  the  eject, 
ment  of  gentlemen  who  subsist  upon  free  lunches.  It  is  so  arranged 
that  when  the  fellow  gets  both  hands  into  the  victuals,  a  large  hand 
descends  upon  him,  jams  his  hat  over  his  eyes — he  is  seized,  turned 
toward  the  door,  and  just  in  the  nick  of  time  an  immense  boot  comes 
from  the  other  side,  kicks  him  in  italics,  sends  him  out  over  the  side- 
walk and  lands  him  rolling  in  the  gutter.  I  never  hear  of  such  a 
man— a  boss — that  I  don't  feel  as  though  that  machine  ought  to  be 
brought  into  requisition  for  his  benefit. 

Love  is  the  only  thing  that  will  pay  ten  percent  of  interest  on  the  out- 
lay. Love  is  the  only  thing  in  which  the  height  of  extravagance  is  the 
last  degree  of  economy.  It  is  the  only  thing,  I  tell  you.  Joy  is  wealth. 
Love  is  the  legal  tender  of  the  soul  —  and  you  need  not  be  rich  to  be 
happy.  We  have  all  been  raised  on  success  in  this  country.  Always 
been  talked  with  about  being  successful,  and  have  never  thought  our- 
selves very  rich  unless  we  were  the  possessors  of  some  magnificent  man- 
sion, and  unless  our  names  have  been  between  the  putrid  lips  of  rumor 
we  could  not  be  happy.  Every  little  boy  is  striving  to  be  this  and  be 


SKULLS  AND  REPLIES.  121 

that.  I  tell  you  the  happy  man  is  the  successful  man.  T^e  man  that 
has  won  the  love  of  one  good  woman  is  a  successful  man.  The  man 
that  has  been  the  emperor  of  one  good  heart,  and  that  heart  embraced  all 
his,  has  been  a  success.  If  another  has  been  the  emperor  of  the  round 
world  and  has  never  loved  and  been  loved,  his  life  is  a  failure.  It  won't 
do.  Let  us  teach  our  children  the  other  way,  that  the  happy  man  is  the 
successful  man,  and  he  who  is  a  happy  man  is  the  one  who  always  tries 
to  make  some  one  else  happy. 

The  man  who  marries  a  woman  to  make  her  happy ;  that  marries  her 
as  much  for  her  own  sake  as  for  his  own ;  not  the  man  that  thinks  his 
wife  is  his  property,  who  thinks  that  the  title  to  her  belongs  to  him  — 
that  the  woman  is  the  property  of  the  man ;  wretches  who  get  mad  at 
their  wives  and  then  shoot  them  down  in  the  street  because  they  think 
the  woman  is  their  property.  I  tell  you  it  is  not  necessary  to  be  rich 
and  great  and  powerful  to  be  happy. 

A  little  while  ago  I  stood  by  the  grave  of  the  old  Napoleon — a  mag-1 
nificent  tomb  of  gilt  and  gold,  fit  almost  for  a  dead  deity — and  gazed 
upon  the  sarcophagus  of  black  Egyptian  marble,  where  rest  at  last  the 
ashes  of  the  restless  man.  I  leaned  over  the  balustrade  and  thought 
about  the  career  of  the  greatest  soldier  of  the  modern  world.  I  saw  him 
walking  upon  the  banks  of  the  Seine,  contemplating  suicide— I  saw 
him  at  Toulon — I  saw  him  putting  down  the  mob  in  the  streets  of  Paris 
— I  saw  him  at  the  head  of  the  army  of  Italy — I  saw  him  crossing  the 
bridge  ot  Lodi  with  the  tri-color  in  his  hand — I  saw  him  in  Egypt  in 
the  shadows  of  the  pyramids — I  saw  him  conquer  the  Alps  and  mingle 
the  eagles  of  France  with  the  eagles  of  the  crags.  I  saw  him  at  Marengo 
— at  Ulm  and  Asterlitz.  I  saw  him  in  Russia,  where  the  infantry  of  the 
snow  and  the  cavalry  of  the  wild  blast  scattered  his  legions  like  Winter'* 
withered  leaves.  I  saw  him  at  Leipsic  in  defeat  and  disaster — driven  by 
a  million  bayonets  back  upon  Paris — clutched  like  a  wild  beast — ban- 
ished to  Elba.  I  saw  him  escape  and  retake  an  empire  by  the  force  of 
his  genius.  I  saw  him  upon  the  frightful  field  of  Waterloo,  where 
chance  and  fate  combined  to  wreck  the  fortunes  of  their  former  king. 
And  I  saw  him  at  St.  Helena,  with  his  hands  crossed  behind  him,  gazing 
out  upon  the  sad  and  solemn  sea.  I  thought  of  the  orphans  and  widows 
he  had  made — of  the  tears  that  had  been  shed  for  his  glory,  and  of  the 
only  woman  who  ever  loved  him,  pushed  from  his  heart  by  the  cold 
hand  of  ambition.  And  I  said  I  would  rather  have  been  a  French  peas- 
ant and  worn  wooden  shoes.  I  would  rather  have  lived  in  a  hut  with  a 
vine  growing  over  the  door,  and  the  grapes  growing  purple  in  the  kisses 
of  the  Autumn  sun.  I  would  rather  have  been  that  poor  peasant  with 
my  loving  wife  by  my  side,  knitting  as  the  day  died  out  of  the  sky — 
with  my  children  upon  my  knees  and  their  arms  about  me.  I  would 


122  MISTAKES  OF  1NGERSOLL. 

r~ 

rather  have  been  that  man  and  gone  down  to  the  tongueless  silence  of 
the  dreamless  dust,  than  to  have  been  that  imperial  impersonation  of 
force  and  murder  known  as  Napoleon  the  Great.  It  is  not  necessary  tc 
be  rich  in  order  to  be  happy.  It  is  only  necessary  to  be  in  love.  Thou- 
sands of  men  go  to  college  and  get  a  certificate  that  they  have  an  edu- 
•cation,  and  that  certificate  is  in  Latin  and  they  stop  studying,  and  in  twc 
years  to  save  their  life  taey  couldn't  read  tlie  certificate  they  got. 

It  is  mostly  so  in  marrying.  They  stop  courting  when  they  get  mar- 
ried. They  think,  we  have  won  her  and  that  is  enough.  Ah!  the  differ- 
«nce  before  and  after!  How  well  they  look!  How  bright  their  eyes! 
How  light  their  steps,  and  how  full  they  were  of  generosity  and  laughter/ 
I  tell  you  a  man  should  consider  himself  in  good  luck  if  a  woman  loves 
him  when  he  is  doing  his  level  best !  Good  luck!  Good  luck!  And 
another  thing  that  is  the  cause  of  much  trouble  is  that  people  don't  count 
fairly.  They  do  what  they  call  putting  their  best  foot  forward.  That 
means  lying  a  little.  I  say  put  your  worst  foot  forward.  If  you  have 
got  any  faults  admit  them.  If  you  drink,  say  so  and  quit  it.  If  you 
•chew  and  smoke  and  swear,  say  so.  If  some  of  your  kindred  are  not 
very  good  people,  say  so.  If  you  have  had  two  or  thrtethat  died  on  the 
gallows,  or  that  ought  to  have  died  there,  say  so.  Tell  all  your  faults, 
and  if  after  she  knows  your  faults  she  says  she  will  have  you,  you  have 
got  the  dead  wood  on  that  woman  forever.  I  claim  that  there  should  be 
perfect  equality  in  the  home,  and  I  can  not  think  of  anything  nearer 
Heaven  than  a  home  where  there  is  true  republicanism  and  true  democ- 
racy at  the  fireside.  All  are  equal. 

And  then,  do  you  know,  I  like  to  thiuk  that  love  is  eternal;  that  li 
you  really  love  the  woman,  for  her  sake,  j'ou  will  love  her  no  mattef 
what  she  may  do;  that  if  she  really  loves  you,  for  your  sake,  the  same; 
that  love  does  not  look  at  alterations,  through  the  wrinkles  of  time, 
through  the  mask  of  years — if  you  really  love  her  you  will  always  see 
the  face  you  loved  and  won.  And  I  like  t  >  think  of  it.  If  a  man  loves 
a  woman  she  does  not  ever  grow.old  to  him,  and  the  woman  who  really 
loves  a  man  doc-s  not  see  that  he  grows  old.  He  is  not  decrepit  to  her. 
He  is  not  tremulous.  He  is  not  old.  He  is  not  bowed.  Slic  always 
sees  the  same  gallant  fellow  that  won  her  hand  and  heart.  I  like  to 
think  of  it  in  that  way,  and  as  Shakspearc  says:  "  Let  Tune  reach  with 
his  sickle  as  far  us  ever  he  cau  ;  although  he  can  reach  ruddy  cheeks  and 
ripe  lips,  and  flushing  eyes,  he  can  not  quite  reach  love."  I  like  to  think 
of  it.  We  will  go  down  the  hill  of  life  together,  and  enter  the  shadow 
one  with  the  other,  and  as  we  go  down  we  may  hear  the  ripple  of  the 
laughter  of  our  grandchildren,  and  the  birds,  and  spring,  and  youth,  and 
lovo  will  sing  once  more  upo*n  the  leafless  brunches  of  the  tree  of  age. 


BKULLX  AND  REPLIES.  123 

I  love  to  think  of  it  in  that  way — absolute  equals,  happy,  happy,  and 
free,  ah  our  own. 

But  some  people  say :  "Would  you  allow  a  woman  to  vote?"  Yes, 
if  she  wants  to;  that  is  her  business,  not  mine.  If  a  woman  wants  to 
vote,  I  am  too  much  of  a  gentleman  to  say  she  shall  not.  But  they  say 
•woman  has  not  sense  enough  to  vote.  It  don't  take  much.  But  it  seems 
to  me  there  are  some  questionsras  for  instance,  the  question  of  peace  and 
war,  that  a  woman  should  be  allowed  to  vote  upon.  A  woman  that  has 
sons  to  be  offered  on  the  altar  of  that  Moloch,  it  seems  to  me  that  such  a 
grand  woman  should  have  as  much  right  to  vote  upon  the  question  of 
peace  and  war  as  some  thrice-besotted  sot  that  reels  to  the  ballot  box  and 
•deposits  his  vote  for  war.  But  if  women  have  been  slaves,  what  shall 
we  say  of  the  little  children  born  in  the  sub-cellars;  children  of  poverty, 
children  of  crime,  children  of  wealth,  children  that  are  afraid  when 
they  hear  their  nuines  pronounced  by  the  lips  of  the  mother,  children 
that  cower  in  fear  when  they  hear  the  footsteps  of  their  brutal  father, 
the  flotsam  and  jetsam  upon  the  rude  sea  of  life,  my  heart  goes  out  to 
them  one  and  all. 

Children  have  all  the  rights  that  we  have  and  one  more,  and  that  is  to 
be  protected.  Treat  your  children  in  that  way.  Suppose  yourchild  tells 
•a  lie.  Don't  pretend  that  the  whole  world  is  going  into  bankruptcy. 
Don't  pretend  that  that  is  the  first  lie  ever  told.  Tell  them,  like  an  hon- 
est man,  that  you  have  told  hundreds  of  lies  yourself,  and  tell  the  dear 
little  darling  that  it  is  not  the  best  way ;  that  it  soils  the  soul.  Think  of 
the  man  that  deals  in  stocks  whipping  his  children  for  putting  false 
Tumors  afloat!  Think  of  an  orthodox  minister  whipping  his  own  flesh 
and  blood,  for  not  telling  all  it  thinks!  Think  of  that!  Think  of  a 
lawyer  beating  his  child  for  avoiding  the  truth!  when  the  old  man 
makes  about  half  his  living  that  way.  A  lie  is  born  of  weakness  on  one 
«ide  and  tyranny  on  the  other.  That  is  what  it  is.  Think  of  a  great  big 
man  coming  at  a  little  bit  of  a  child  with  a  club  in  his  hand!  What  is 
the  little  darling  to  do?  Lie,  of  course.  I  think  that  mother  Nature 
put  that  ingenuity  into  the  mind  of  the  child,  when  attacked  by  a  parent, 
to  throw  up  a  little  breastwork  in  the  shape  of  a  lie  to  defend  itself. 
When  a  great  general  wins  a  battle  by  what  they  call  strategy,  we  build 
monuments  to  him.  What  is  strategy  ?  Lies.  Suppose  a  man  as  much 
larger  than  we  are  as  we  are  larger  than  a  child  five  years  of  age,  should 
come  at  us  with  a  liberty  pole  in  his  hand,  and  in  tones  of  thunder  want 
to  know  "  who  broke  that  plate,"  there  isn't  one  of  us,  not  excepting 
myself,  that  wouldn't  swear  that  we  never  had  seen  that  plate  in  our 
lives,  or  that  it  was  cracked  when  we  got  it. 

Another  good  way  to  make  children  tell  the  truth  is  to  tell  it  yourself. 
Keep  your  word  with  your  child  the  same  as  you  would  with  your 


124  MISTAKES  OF  INGERSOLL. 

banker.  If  you  tell  a  child  you  will  do  anything,  either  do  it  or  give 
the  child  the  reason  why.  Truth  is  born  of  confidence.  It  comes  from 
the  lips  of  love  and  liberty.  I  was  over  in  Michigan  the  other  day. 
There  was  a  boy  over  there  at  Grand  Rapids  about  five  or  six  years  old, 
a  nice,  smart  boy,  as  you  will  see  from  the  remark  he  made — what  you 
might  call  a  nineteenth  century  boy.  His  father  and  mother  had  prom- 
ised to  take  him  out  riding.  They  had  promised  to  take  him  out  riding 
for  about  three  weeks,  and  they  would  slip  off"  and  go  without  him. 
Well,  after  a  while,  that  got  kind  of  played  out  with  the  little  boy,  and 
the  day  before  I  was  there  they  played  the  trick  on  him  again.  They 
went  out  and  got  the  carriage,  and  went  away,  and  as  they  rode  away 
from  the  front  of  the  house,  he  happened  to  be  standing  there  with  hi» 
nurse,  and  he  saw  them.  The  whole  thing  flashed  on  him  in  a  moment. 
He  took  in  the  situation,  and  turned  to  his  nurse  and  said,  pointing  to 

his  father  and  mother:  "There  goes  the  two  d 1  liars  in  the  State  of 

Michigan !  "  When  you  go  home  fill  the  house  with  joy,  so  that  the 
light  of  it  will  stream  out  the  windows  and  doors,  and  illuminate  even 
the  darkness.  It  is  just  as  easy  that  way  as  any  in  the  world. 

I  want  to  tell  you  to-night  that  you  can  not  get  the  robe  of  hypocrisy 
on  you  so  thick  that  the  sharp  eye  of  childhood  will  not  see  through 
every  veil,  and  if  you  pretend  to  your  children  that  you  are  the  best  man 
that  ever  lived — the  bravest  man  that  ever  lived — they  will  find  you  out 
every  time.  They  will  not  have  the  same  opinion  of  father  when  they 
grow  up  that  they  used  to  have.  They  will  have  to  be  in  mighty  bad 
luck  if  they  ever  do  meaner  things  than  you  have  done.  When  your 
child  confesses  to  you  that  it  has  committed  a  fault,  take  that  child  in 
your  arms,  and  let  it  leel  your  heartbeat  against  its  heart,  and  raise  your 
children  in  the  sunlight  of  love,  and  they  will  be  sunbeams  to  you 
along  the  pathway  of  life.  Abolish  the  club  and  the  whip  from  the 
house,  because,  if  the  civilized  use  a  whip,  the  ignorant  and  the  brutal 
will  use  a  club,  and  they  will  use  it  because  you  use  the  whip. 

Every  little  while  some  door  is  thrown  open  in  some  orphan  asylum» 
and  there  we  see  the  bleeding  back  of  a  child  whipped  beneath  the  roof 
/  that  was  raised  by  love.  It  is  infamous,  and  the  man  that  can't  raise  a 
child  without  the  whip  ought  not  to  have  a  child.  If  there  is  one  of 
you  here  that  ever  expect  to  whip  your  child  again,  let  me  ask  you  some- 
thing. Have  your  photograph  taken  at  the  time  and  let  it  show  your 
face  red  with  vulgar  anger,  and  the  face  of  the  little  one  with  eyes- 
swimming  in  tears,  and  the  little  chin  dimpled  with  fear,  looking  like  a 
piece  of  water  struck  by  a  sudden  cold  wind.  If  that  little  child  should 
die,  I  can  not  think  of  a  sweeter  way  to  spend  an  Autumn  afternoon 
than  to  take  that  photograph  and  go  to  the  cemetery,  when  the  maples 
are  clad  in  tender  gold,  and  when  little  scarlet  runners  are  coming  from 


SKULLS  AND  REPLIES.  135 

the  sad  heart  of  the  earth,  and  sit  down  upon  that  mound,  and  look  upon 
that  photograph,  and  think  of  the  flesh,  now  dust,  that  you  beat.  Just 
think  of  it.  I  could  not  bear  to  die  in  the  arms  of  a  child  that  I  had 
•whipped.  I  could  not  bear  to  feel  upon  my  lips,  when  they  were 
•withered  beneath  the  touch  of  death,  the  kiss  of  one  that  I  had  struck. 
Some  Christians  act  as  though  they  really  thought  that  when  Christ 
said,  "Suffer  little  children  to  come  unto  me,"  He  had  a  rawhide  under 
His  coat.  They  act  as  though  they  really  thought  that  He  made  that 
remark  simply  to  get  the  children  within  striking  distance. 

I  have  known  Christians  to  turn  their  children  from  their  doors, 
especially  a  daughter,  and  then  get  down  on  their  knees  and  pray  to  God 
to  watch  over  them  and  help  them.  I  will  never  ask  God  to  help  my 
children  unless  I  am  doing  my  level  best  in  that  same  wretched  line. 
i  will  U-ll  you  what  I  say  to  my  girls^  "  Go  where  you  will ;  do  what 
crime  you  may;  fall  to  what  depth  of  degradation  you  may;  in  all  the 
storms  and  winds  and  earthquakes  of  life,  no  matter  what  you  do,  you 
never  can  commit  any  crime  that  will  shut  my  door,  my  arms  or  my 
heart  to  you.  As  long  as  I  live  you  shall  have  one  sincere  friend."  Call 
me  an  antheist;  call  me  an  infidel  because  I  hate  the  God  of  the  Jew — 
•which  I  do.  I  intend  so  to  live  that  when  1  die  my  children  can  come 
to  my  grave  and  truthfully  say :  "  He  who  sleeps  here  never  gave  us  one 
moment  of  pain." 

When  I  was  a  boy  there  was  one  day  in  each  week  too  good  for  a 
child  to  be  happy  in.  In  these  good  old  times  Sunday  commenced  when 
the  sun  went  down  on  Saturday  night,  and  closed  when  the  sun  went 
down  on  Sunday  night.  We  commenced  Saturday  to  get  a  good  ready. 
And  when  the  sun  went  down  Saturday  night  there  was  a  gloom  deeper 
than  midnight  that  fell  upon  the  house.  You  could  not  crack  hickory 
nuts  then.  And  if  you  were  caught  chewing  gum,  it  was  only  another 
evidence  of  the  total  depravity  of  the  human  heart.  Well,  after  a  while 
•we  got  to  bed  sadly  and  sorrowfully  after  having  heard  Heaven  thanked 
that  we  were  not  all  in  Hell.  And  I  sometimes  used  to  wonder  how  the 
mercy  of  God  lasted  as  long  as  it  did.  because  I  recollected  that  on  sev- 
eral occasions  I  had  not  been  at  school,  when  I  was  supposed  to  be  there. 
Why  I  was  not  burned  to  a  crisp  was  a  mystery  to  me.  The  next  morn- 
ing we  got  up  and  we  got  ready  for  church — all  solemn,  and  when  we  got 
there  the  minister  was  up  in  the  pulpit,  about  twenty  feet  high,  and  he 
commenced  at  Genesis  about  "  The  fall  of  man,"  and  he  went  on  to  about 
twenty  thirdly;  then  he  struck  the  second  application,  and  when  he 
struck  the  application  I  knew  he  was  about  half  way  through.  And 
then  he  went  on  to  show  the  scheme  how  the  Lord  was  satisfied  by  pun- 
ishing the  wrong  man.  Nobody  but  a  God  would  have  thought  of  that 
ingenious  way.  Well,  when  he  got  through  that,  then  came  the  catechism 


126  MISTAKES  OF  INGERSOLL. 

— the  chief  end  of  man.  Then  my  turn  came,  and  we  sat  along  on  a  little 
bench  where  our  feet  came  wit  hm  about  fifteen  inches  of  the1  floor,  and  the 
dear  old  minister  used  to  ask  us: 

"Boys,  do  you  know  that  yon  ought  to  be  in  Hell  ?" 

And  we  answered  up  as  cheerfully  as  could  be  expected  under  the  cir- 
cumstances : 

"  Yes,  sir." 

"  Well,  boys,  do  you  know  that  you  would  go  to  Hell  if  you  died  in 
your  sins?" 

And  we  said :   "  Yes,  air." 

And  theu  came  the  great  test : 

"Boys" — I  can't  get  the  tone,  you  know.  And  do  you  know  that  i» 
how  the  preachers  get  the  bronchitis.  You  never  heard  of  an  auctioneer 
getting  the  bronchitis,  nor  the  wecond  mate  on  a  steamboat — never. 
What  gives  it  to  the  minister  is  talking  solemnly  when  they  don't  feel 
that  way,  and  it  has  the  same  influence  upon  the  organs  of  speech  that 
it  would  have  upon  the  curds  of  the  calves  of  your  legs  to  walk  on  your 
tip-toes,  and  so  I  call  bronchitis  "  parsonitis."  And  if  the  ministers- 
would  all  tell  exactly  what  they  think  they  would  all  get  well,  but  keep- 
ing back  ii  part  of  the  truth  is  what  gives  them  bronchitis. 

Well  the  old  man — the  dear  old  minister — used  to  try  and  show  u» 
how  long  we  would  be  in  Hell  if  we  would  only  locate  there.  But  to 
finish  the  .other.  The  grand  test  question  was : 

"  Boys,  if  it  was  God's  will  that  you  should  go  to  Hell,  would  you  be 
willing  to  go?" 

And  every  little  liar  said : 

"  Yes,  sir." 

Then,  in  ort'er  to  tell  how  long  we  would  stay  there,  he  used  to  eay: 

"Suppose  once  in  a  billion  ages  a  bird  should  come  fr*m  a  far  distant 
clime  and  carry  off  in  its  bill  one  little  grain  of  aand,  the  time  would 
finally  come  when  the  last  grain  of  sand  would  be  carried  away.  Do 
you  understand? 

"  Yes,  sir." 

"  Boys,  by  that  time  it  would  not  be  sun-up  in  Hell." 

Where  did  that  doctrine  of  II ell  come  from  ?  I  will  tell  you ;  from  that 
fellow  m  the  dug-out.  Where  did  he  get  it?  It  was  a  souvenir  from 
the  wild  beasts.  Yes,  I  tell  you  he  got  it  from  the  wild  beasts,  from  the 
glittering  eye  of  the  serpent,  from  the  coiling,  twisting  snakes  with  their 
fangs  mouths ;  and  it  came  from  the  bark,  growl  and  howl  of  wild  beasts ; 
it  was  born  of  a  laugh  of  the  hyena  and  got  it  from  the  depraved  chatter 
of  malicious  apes.  And  I  despise  it  with  every  drop  of  my  blood  and 
defy  it.  If  there  is  any  God  in  this  universe  who  will  damn  his  children 
for  an  expression  of  an  honest  thought  I  wish  to  go  to  Hell.  I  would 


SKULLS  AND  REPLIES.  127 

Bather  go  there  than  go  to  Heaven  and  keep  the  company  of  a  God  that 
would  thus  damn  his  children.  Oh !  it  is  an  infamous  doctrine  to  teach 
chattolittlechildren,  toput  a  shadow  in  the  heartof  a  child  to  fill  the  in- 
sane asylums  with  that  miserable,  infamous  lie.  I  see  now  and  then  a 
little  girl— a  dear  little  darling,  with  a  face  like  the  light,  and  eyes  of 
joy,  a  human  blossom,  and  I  think,  "  is  it  possible  that  little  girl  will 
ever  grow  up  to  be  a  Presbyterian  ?*'  Is  it  possible,  my  goodness,  that 
that  flower  will  finally  believe  in  the  five  points  of  Calvinism  or  in  the 
eternal  damnation  of  man?"  Is  it  possible  that  that  little  fairy  will 
finally  believe  that  she  could  be  happy  in  Heaven  with  her  baby  in  Hell  ? 
Think  of  it !  Think  of  it !  And  that  is  the  Christian  religion ! 

We  cry  out  against  the  Indian  mother  that  throws  her  child  into  the 
Ganges  to  be  devoured  by  the  alligator  or  crocodile,  but  that  is  joy  in 
comparison  with  the  Christian  mother's  hope,  that  she  may  be  in  salva- 
tion while  her  brave  boy  is  in  Hell. 

I  tell  you  I  want  to  kick  the  doctrine  about  Hell — I  want  to  kick  it  out 
every  time  I  go  by  it.  I  want  to  get  Americans  in  this  country  placed 
so  they  will  be  ashamed  to  preach  it.  I  want  to  get  the  congregations  so 
that  they  won't  listen  to  it.  We  can  not  divide  the  world  off  into 
saints  and  sinners  in  that  way.  There  is  a  little  girl,  fair  as  a  flower*, 
and  she  grows  up  until  she  is  twelve,  thirteen,  or  fourteen  years  old. 
Are  you  going  to  damn  her  in  the  fifteenth,  sixteenth  or  seventeenth  year, 
when  the  arrow  from  Cupid's  bow  touches  her  heart  and  she  is  glorified 
— are  you  going  to  damn  her  now  ?  She  marries  and  loves,  and  holds  in 
her  arms  a  beautiful  child.  Are  you  going  to  damn  her  now  ?  When  are 
you  going  to  damn  her?  Because  she  has  listened  to  some  Methodist 
minister  and  after  all  that  flood  of  light  failed  to  believe  ?  Are  you 
going  to  damn  her  then  ?  I  tell  you  God  can  not  afford  to  damn  such  a 
woman. 

A  woman  in  the  State  of  Indiana  forty  or  filty  years  ago  who  carded 
the  wool  and  made  rolls  and  spun  them,  and  made  the  cloth  and  cut  out 
the  clothes  for  the  children,  and  nursed  them,  and  sat  up  with  them 
nights  and  gave  them  medicine,  and  held  th<-m  in  her  arms  and  wept 
over  them — cried  for  joy  and  wept  for  fear,  and  finally  raised  ten  or 
eleven  good  men  and  women  with  the  ruddy  glow  of  health  upon  their 
cheeks,  and  she  would  have  died  for  any  one  of  them  any  moment  of 
her  life,  and  finally  she,  bowed  with  age  and  bent  with  care  and  labor, 
dies,  and  at  the  moment  the  magical  touch  of  death  is  upon  her  face, 
she  looks  as  though  she  never  had  had  a  care,  and  her  children  burying  her 
cover  her  face  with  tears.  Do  you  tell  me  God  can  afford  to  damn  that 
kind  of  a  woman?  One  such  act  of  injustice  would  turn  Heaven  itself 
into  Hell.  If  there  is  any  God,  sitting  above  him  in  infinite  serenity  we 
have  the  figure  of  justice.  Even  a  God  must  do  justice;  even  a  God 


128  MISTAKES  OF  INQERSOLL. 

must  worship  justice;  and  any  form  of  superstition  that  destroys  justice 
is  infamous !  Just  think  of  teaching  that  doctrine  to  little  children !  A 
little  child  would  go  out  into  the  garden,  and  there  would  be  a  little  tree 
laden  with  blossoms,  and  the  little  fellow  would  lean  against  it,  and 
there  would  be  a  bird  on  one  of  the  bows,  singing  and  swinging,  and 
thinking  about  four  liiue  speckled  eyes  warmed  by  the  breast  of  its 
mate, — singing  and  swinging,  and  the  music  in  happy  waves  rippling 
out  of  the  tiny  throat,  and  the  flowers  blossoming,  the  air  filled  with 
perfume,  and  the  great  white  clouds  floating  in  the  sky,  and  the  little  boy 
would  lean  up  against  the  tree  and  think  about  Hell  and  the  worm  that 
never  dies.  Oh !  the  idea  there  can  be  any  day  too  good  for  a  child  to 
be  happy  in ! 

Well,  after  we  got  over  the  catechism,  then  came  the  sermon  in  the 
afternoon,  and  it  was  exactly  like  the  one  in  the  fore-noon,  except  the 
other  end.lQt,  Then  we  started  for  home — a  solemn  march — "  not  a  soldier 
discharged  his  farewell  shot" — and  when  we  got  home  if  we  had  been 
real  good  boys  we  used  to  be  taken  up  to  the  cemetery  to  cheer  us  up, 
and  it  always  did  cheer  me,  those  sunken  graves,  those  leaning  stones, 
those  gloomy  epitaphs  covered  with  the  moss  of  years  always  cheered 
me.  When  I  looked  at  them  I  said :  "Well,  this  kind  of  thing  can't 
last  always."  Then  we  came  back  home,  and  we  hud  books  to  read 
which  were  very  eloquent  and  amusing.  We  had  Josephus,  and  the 
"  History  of  the  Waldenses,"  and  "Fox's  Book  of  Martyrs,"  Baxter's 
"Saint's  Rest,"  and  "Jenkyu  on  the  Atonement."  I  used  to  read 
Jenkyu  with  a  good  deal  of  pleasure,  and  I  often  thought  that  the  atone- 
ment would  have  to  be  very  broad  in  its  provisions  to  cover  the  case  of 
&  man  that  would  write  such  a  book  for  the  boys.  Then  I  would  look 
to  see  how  the  sun  was  getting  on,  and  sometimes  I  thougt  it  had  stuck 
from  pure  cussedness.  Then  I  would  go  back  and  try  Jenkyn's  again. 
Well,  but  it  had  to  go  down,  and  when  the  last  rim  of  light  sank  below 
the  horizon,  off  would  go  our  hats  and  we  would  give  three  cheers  for 
liberty  once  again. 

I  tell  you,  don't  make  slaves  of  your  children  on  Sunday. 

The  idea  that  there  is  any  God  that  hates  to  hear  a  child  laugh !  Lot 
your  children  play  games  on  Sunday.  Here  is  a  poor  man  that  hasn't 
money  enough  to  go  to  a  big  church  and  he  has  too  much  independence 
to  go  to  a  little  church  that  the  big  church  built  for  charity.  He  don't 
want  to  slide  into  Heaven  that  way.  I  tell  you  don't  come  to  church, 
but  go  to  the  woods  and  take  your  family  and  a  lunch  with  you,  and  sit 
down  upon  the  old  log  and  let  the  children  gather  flowers  and  hear  the 
leaves  whispering  poems  like  memories  of  long  ago,  and  when  the  sun  is 
about  going  down,  kissing  the  summits  of  far  hills,  go  home  with  your 
hearts  filled  with  throbs  of  joy.  There  is  more  recreation  and  joy  in  that 


SKULLS  AND  REPLIES.  139 

than  fir»?n<r  to  a  dry  goods  box  with  a  steeple  on  top  of  it  and  hearing  a 
man  tell  you  that  your  chances  are  about  ninety-nine  to  one  for  being 
eternally  damned.  Let  us  make  this  Sunday  a  day  of  splendid  pleasure, 
not  to  excess,  but  to  everything  that  makes  man  purer  and  grander  and 
nobler.  I  would  like  to  see  now  something  like  this:  Instead  of  so 
mauy  churches,  a  vast  cathedral  that  would  hold  twenty  or  thirty  thou- 
sand of  people,  and  I  would  like  tosee  an  opera  produced  in  it  that  would 
make  the  souls  of  men  have  higher  and  grander  and  nobler  aims.  I 
would  like  to  see  the  walls  covered  with  pictures  and  the  niches  rich 
with  statuary;  I  would  like  to  see  something  put  there  that  you  could 
use  iu  this  world  now,  and  I  do  not  believe  in  sacrificing  the  present  to 
the  future ;  I  do  not  believe  in  drinking  skimmed  milk  here  with  the 
promise  of  butler  beyond  the  clouds.  Space  or  time  can  not  be  holy  any 
more  than  a  vacuum  can  be  pious.  Not  a  bit,  not  a  bit ;  and  no  day  can 
be  so  holy  but  what  the  laugh  of  a  child  will  make  it  holier  still. 

Strike  with  hand  of  fire,  on,  weird  musician,  thy  harp,  strung  with 
Apollo's  golden  hair!  Fill  the  vast  cathedral  aisles  with  symphonies 
sweet  and  dim,  deft  toucher  of  the  organ's  keys;  blow,  bugler,  blow 
until  thy  silver  notes  do  touch  and  kiss  the  moonlit  waves,  and  charm 
the  lovers  wandering  'mid  the  vine-clad  hills.  But  know  your  sweetest 
strains  are  discords  all  compared  with  childhood's  happy  laugh — the 
laugh  that  fills  the  eyes  with  light  and  every  heart  with  joy !  O,  rippling 
river  of  laughter,  thou  art  the  blessed  boundary  line  between  the  beasts 
and  men,  and  every  wayward  wave  of  thine  doth  drown  some  fretful 
fiend  of  care.  O  Laughter,  rose  lipped  daughter  of  Joy,  there  are  dim- 
pies  enough  in  thy  cheeks  to  catch  and  hold  and  glorify  all  the  tears  of 
grief. 

Don't  plant  your  children  in  long,  straight  rows,  like  posts.    Let  them 
have  light  and  air  and  let  them  grow  beautiful  as  palms.    When  I  was 
a  little  boy  children  went  to  bed  when  they  were  not  sleepy,  and  always 
got  up  when  they  were.     I  would  like  to  see  that  changed,  but  they  say 
we  are  too  poor,  some  of  us,  to  do  it.    Well,  all  right.    It  is  as  easy  to        ^ 
wake  a  child  with  a  kiss  as  with  a  blow;  with  kindness  as  with  a  curse,         ( 
And,  another  thing;  let  the  children  eat  what  they  want  to.    Let  them        j 
commence  at  whichever  end  of  the  dinner  they  desire.    That  is  ray  doc- 
trine.   They  know  what  they  want  much  better  than  you  do.     Nature 
is  a  great  deal  smarter  than  you  ever  were. 

All  the  advance  that  has  been  made  in  the  science  of  medicine,  has 
been  made  by  the  recklessness  of  patients.  I  can  recollect  when  they 
wouldn't  give  a  man  water  in  a  fever— not  a  drop.  Now  and  then  some 
fellow  would  get  so  thirsty  he  would  say :  "  Well,  I'll  die  any  way,  so 
I'll  drink  it,"  and  thereupon  he  would  drink  a  gallon  of  water,  and 
thereupon  he  would  burst  into  a  generous  perspiration,  and  get  well — 


130  MISTAKES  OF  INOERSOLL. 

and  the  next  morning  when  the  doctor  would  come  to  see  him  they 
•would  tell  him  about  the  man  drinking  the  water,  and  he  would  say; 
"How  much?" 

"Well,  he  swallowed  two  pitchers  full." 

"Is  he  alive?" 

"  Yes." 

So  they  would  go  into  the  room  and  the  doctor  would  feel  his  pulse 
and  ask  him : 

"  Did  you  drink  two  pitchers  of  water?" 

"  Yes." 

"  My  God !  what  a  constitution  you  have  got." 

I  tell  you  there  is  something  splendid  in  man  that  will  not  always 
mind.  Why,  if  we  had  done  as  the  kings  told  us  five  hundred  years 
ago,  we  would  all  have  been  slaves.  If  we  had  done  as  the  priests  told 
us  we  would  all  have  been  idiots.  If  we  had  done  as  the  doctors  told 
us  we  would  all  have  been  dead.  We  have  been  saved  by  disobedience. 
We  have  been  saved  by  that  splendid  thing  called  independence,  and  I 
want  to  see  more  of  it,  day  after  day,  and  I  want  to  see  children  raised 
so  they  will  have  it.  That  is  my  doctrine.  Give  the  children  a  chance. 
Be  perfectly  honor  bright  with  them,  and  they  will  be  your  friends  when 
you  are  old.  Don't  try  to  teach  them  something  they  can  never  learn. 
Don't  insist  upon  their  pursuing  some  calling  they  have  no  sort  of  fac- 
ulty for.  Don't  make  that  poor  girl  play  ten  years  on  a  piano  when  she 
has  no  ear  for  music,  and  when  she  has  practiced  until  she  can  play 
"  Bonaparte  crossing  the  Alps,"  and  you  can't  tell  after  she  has  played 
it  whether  Bonaparte  ever  got  across  or  not.  Men  are  oaks,  women  are 
vines,  children  are  flowers,  and  if  there  is  any  Heaven  in  this  world,  it  ia 
in  the  family.  It  is  where  the  wife  loves  the  husband,  and  the  husband 
loves  the  wife,  and  where  the  dimpled  arms  of  children  are  about  the 
necks  of  both.  That  is  Heaven,  if  there  is  any — and  I  do  not  want  any 
better  Heaven  in  another  world  than  that,  and  if  in  another  world  I  can 
not  live  with  the  ones  I  loved  here,  then  I  would  rather  not  be  there. 
I  would  rather  resign. 

Well,  my  friends,  I  have  some  excuses  to  make  for  the  race  to  which 
I  belong.  In  the  first  place,  this  world  is  not  very  well  adapted  to  rais- 
ing good  men  and  good  women.  It  is  three  times  better  adapted  to  the 
cultivation  of  fish  than  of  people.  There  is  one  little  narrow  beltrunning 
zigag  around  the  world,  in  which  men  and  women  of  genius  can  be 
raised,  and  that  is  all.  It  is  with  man  as  it  is  with  vegetation.  In  the 
valley  you  find  the  oak  and  elm  tossing  their  branches  defiantly  to  the 
storm,  and  as  you  advance  up  the  mountain  side  the  hemlock,  the  pine, 
the  birch,  the  spruce,  the  fir,  and  finally  you  come  to  little  dwarfed  trees, 
that  look  like  other  trees  seen  through  a  telescope  reversed — every  limb 


SKULLS  AND  REPLIES.  131 

twisted  as  through  pain— getting  a  scanty  substance  from  the  miserly 
crevices  of  the  rocks.  You  go  on  and  on,  until  at  last  the  highest  crag  is 
freckled  with,  a  kind  of  moss,  and  vegetation  ends.  You  might  as  well 
try  to  raise  oaks  and  elins  where  the  mosses  grow,  as  to  raise  great  mea 
and  great  women  where  their  surroundings  are  unfavorable.  You  must 
have  the  proper  climate  and  soil. 

There  never  has  been  a  mm  or  woman  of  genius  from  thepouihern 
hemisphere,  because  the  Lord  didn't  allow  tlie  right  climate  to  fall  upon 
the  land.  It  falls  upon  the  water.  There  never  was  much  civilization 
except  where  there  has  been  snow,  and  ordinarily  decent  Winter.  You 
can't  have  civilization  without  it.  Where  man  needs  no  bedclothes  but 
clouds,  revolution  is  the  normal  condition  of  such  a  people.  It  is  tlie 
Winter  that  gives  us  the  home;  it  is  the  Winter  that  gives  us  the  fireside 
and  the  family  relation  and  all  the  beautiful  flowers  of  love  that  adorn 
that  relation.  Civilization,  liberty,  justice,  charity  and  intellectual 
advancement  are  all  flowers  that  bloom  in  the  drilled  snow.  You  can't 
have  them  anywhere  else,  and  that  is  the  reason  we  of  the  north  are 
civilized,  and  thai  is  the  reason  that  civilization  has  always  been  with 
Winter.  That  is  the  reason  that  philosophy  has  been  here,  and,  in  spite 
of  all  our  superstitions,  we  have  advanced  beyond  some  of  the  other 
races,  because  we  have  had  this  assistance  of  nature,  that  drove  us  into 
the  family  relation,  that  made  us  prudent;  that  made  us  lay  up  at  one 
time  ior  another  season  of  the  year.  So  there  is  one  excuse  I  have  for 
my  race. 

I  have  got  another.  I  think  we  came  from  the  lower  animals.  I  am 
not  dead  sure  of  it,  but  think  so.  When  I  flist  read  about  it  I  didn't 
like  it.  My  heart  was  filled  with  sympathy  for  those  people  leave  noth- 
ing to  be  proud  of  except  ancestors.  I  thought  how  terrible  this  will  be 
upon  tlie  nobility  of  the  old  world.  Think  of  t'.ieir  being  forced  to  trace 
their  ancestry  back  to  the  Duke  Orang  Outan.^  or  to  the  Princess  Chim- 
panzee. After  thinking  U  all  over  I  came  to  the  conclusion  that  I  liked 
that  doctrine.  I  became  convinced  in  spile  of  myself.  I  read  about 
rudimentary  bones  and  muscles.  I  was  toKI  that  everybody  had  rudi- 
mentary muscles  extending  from  the  ear  into  the  cheek.  I  asked: 
"  What  are  they  ?"  I  was  told :  "  They  are  the  remains  of  muscles ;  that 
they  became  rudimentary  from  the  lack  of  use."  They  went  into  bank- 
ruptcy. They  are  the  muscles  with  which  your  ancestors  used  to  flap 
their  cars.  Well,  at  first,  I  was  greatly  astonished,  nod  afterward  I  was 
more  astonished  to  find  they  had  become  rudimentary.  How  can  you 
Account  for  John  Calv:n  unless  we  came  u;>  from  the  lower  animals? 
How  could  you  account  for  a  man  that  would  use  the  extremes  of  torture 
unless  3'ou  admit  that  there  is  in  man  the  elements  of  n  snake,  cf  .1  vul- 
ture, a  hyena,  and  a  jackal?  How  can  you  account  for  the  religious 


133  MISTAKES  OF  INQERSOLL. 

creeds  of  to-day  ?  How  can  you  account  for  that  infamous  doctrine  of 
Hell,  except  with  an  animal  origin  ?  How  can  you  account  for  your 
conception  of  a  God  that  would  sell  women  and  babes  into  slavery  ? 

Well,  I  thought  that  thing  over  and  I  began  to  like  it  after  a  while, 
and  I  said :  "  It  is  not  so  much  difference  who  my  father  was  as  who  his- 
son  is."  And  I  finally  said  I  would  rather  belong  to  a  race  that  com- 
menced with  the  skulless  vertebrates  in  the  dim  Laurentian  seas,  that 
wriggled  without  knowing  why  they  wriggled,  swimming  without  know- 
ing where  they  were  going,  that  come  along  up  by  degrees  through, 
millions  of  ages,  through  all  that  crawls,  and  swims,  and  floats,  and  runs, 
and  growls,  and  barks,  and  howls,  until  it  struck  this  fellow  in  the  dug- 
out. And  then  that  fellow  in  the  dug-out  getting  a  little  grander,  and 
each  one  below  calling  every  one  above  him  a  heretic,  calling  every  one 
•who  had  made  a  little  advance  an  infidel  or  an  atheist,  and  finally  the 
heads  getting  a  little  higher  and  donning  up  a  little  grander  and  more 
splendidly,  and  finally  produced  Shakspeare,  who  harvested  all  the  field 
of  dramatic  thought  and  from  whose  day  until  now  there  have  been  none 
but  gleaners  of  chaff  and  straw.  Shakspeare  was  an  intellectual  ocean 
whose  waves  touched  all  the  shores  of  human  thought,  within  which 
•were  all  the  tides  and  currents  and  pulses  upon  which  lay  all  the  lights 
and  shadows,  and  over  which  brooded  all  the  calms,  and  swept  all  the 
storms  and  tempests  of  which  the  soul  is  capable.  I  would  rather  belong 
to  that  race  that  commenced  with  that  skulless  vertebrate ;  that  produced 
Shakspeare,  a  race  that  has  before  it  an  infinite  future,  with  the  angel 
of  progress  leaning  from  the  far  horizon,  beckoning  men  forward  and 
upward  forever.  I  would  rather  belong  to  that  race  than  to  have  de- 
scended from  a  perfect  pair  upon  which  the  Lord  has  lost  money  every 
moment  from  that  day  to  this. 

Now,  my  crime  lias  been  this:  I  have  insisted  that  the  Bible  is  not 
the  word  of  God.  I  have  insisted  that  we  should  not  whip  oui  children. 
I  have  insisted  that  we  should  treat  our  wives  as  loving  equals.  I  have 
denied  that  God — if  there  is  any  God— ever  upheld  polygamy  and  slav- 
ery. I  have  denied  that  that  God  ever  told  his  generals  to  kill  innocent 
babes  and  tear  and  rip  open  women  with  the  sword  of  war.  I  have 
denied  that,  and  for  that  I  have  been  assailed  by  the  clergy  of  the  United 
States.  They  tell  me  I  have  misquoted ;  and  I  owe  it  to  you,  and  maybe 
I  owe  it  to  myself,  to  read  one  or  two  words  to  you  upon  this  subject 
In  order  to  do  that  I  shall  have  to  put  on  my  glasses;  and  that  brings 
me  back  to  where  I  started — that  man  has  advanced  just  in  proportion 
as  his  thought  has  mingled  with  his  labor.  If  man's  eyes  hadn't  failed 
he  would  never  have  made  nny  spectacles,  he  would  never  have  had  the 
telescope,  and  he  never  would  have  been  able  to  read  the  leaves  of 
Heaven. 


SKULLS  AND  REPLIES.  133 

Mr.  Ingersoll's  Reply  to  Dr.  Collyer. 

Now,  they  tell  me — and  there  are  several  gentlemen  who  have  spoken 
on  this  subject — the  Rev.  Mr.  Collyer,  a  gentleman  standing  as  high  as 
anybody,  and  I  have  nothing  to  say  against  him,  because  I  denounce  a 
God  who  upheld  murder,  and  slavery  and  polygamy,  he  says  that  what 
I  said  was  slang.  I  would  like  to  have  it  compared  with  any  sermon 
that  ever  issued  from  the  lips  of  that  gentleman.  And  before  he  gets 
through  he  admits  that  the  Old  Testament  is  a  rotten  tree  that  will  soon 
fall  into  the  earth  and  act  as  a  fertilizer  for  his  doctrine. 

Is  it  honest  in  that  man  to  assail  my  motive?  Let  him  answer  my 
argument!  Is  it  honest  and  fair  in  him  to  say  I  am  doing  a  certain 
thing  because  it  is  popular?  Has  it  got  to  this,  that,  in  this  Christian 
country,  where  they  have  preached  every  day  hundreds  and  thousands 
of  sermons — has  it  got  to  this  that  infidelity  is  so  popular  in  the  United 
Slates  ? 

If  it  has,  I  take  courage.  And  I  not  only  see  the  dawn  of  a  brighter 
<3ay,  but  the  day  is  here.  Think  of  it !  A  minister  tells  me  in  this  year 
of  grace,  1879,  that  a  man  is  an  infidel  simply  that  he  may  be  popular. 
I  am  glad  of  it.  Simply  that  he  may  make  money.  Is  it  possible 
that  we  can  make  more  money  tearing  up  churches  than  in  building 
them  up?  Is  it  possible  that  we  can  make  more  money  denouncing  the 
God  of  slavery  than  we  can  praising  the  God  that  took  liberty  from  man  ? 
tf  so,  I  am  glad. 

I  call  publicly  upon  Robert  Collyer — a  man  for  whom  I  have  great 
respect — I  call  publicly  upon  Robert  Collyer  to  state  to  the  people  of 
this  city  whether  he  believes  the  Old  Testament  was  inspired.  I  call 
upon  him  to  state  whether  he  believes  that  God  ever  upheld  these 
institutions;  whether  he  believes  that  God  was  a  polygamist;  whether 
he  believes  that  God  commanded  Moses  or  Joshua  or  any  one  else  to 
slay  little  children  iu  the  cradle.  Do  you  believe  that  Robert  Collyer 
would  obey  such  an  order?  Do  you  believe  that  he  would  rush  to  the 
cradle  and  drive  the  knife  of  theological  hatred  to  the  tender  heart  of  a 
dimpled  child  ?  And  yet  when  I  denounce  a  God  that  will  give  such  a 
hellish  order,  he  says  it  is  slang. 

I  want  him  to  answer;  and  when  he  answers  he  will  say  he  does  not 
believe  the  Bible  is  inspired.  That  is  what  he  will  say,  and  he  holds 
these  old  worthies  iu  the  same  contempt  that  I  do.  Suppose  he  should 
act  like  Abraham.  Suppose  he  should  send  some  woman  out  into  the 
-wilderness  with  his  child  in  her  arms  to  starve,  would  be  think  that 
mankind  ought  to  hold  his  name  up  forever,  for  reverence? 

Robert  Collyer  says  that  we  should  read  and  scan  every  word  of  the 
Old  Testament  with  reverence;  that  we  should  take  this  book  up  with 


134  MISTAKES  OF  INOERSOLL. 

reverential  hands.  I  deny  it.  We  should  read  it  as  we  do  every  other 
book,  and  everything  good  in  it,  keep  it;  and  everything  that  shocks 
the  brain  and  shocks  the  heart,  throw  it  away.  Let  U3  be  honest. 

Mr.  Ingersoll'a  Reply  to  Prof.  Swing. 

Prof.  Swing  has  made  a  few  remarks  on  this  subject,  and  I  say  the 
spirit  he  has  exhibited  has  been  as  gentle  and  as  sweet  as  the  perfume  of  a 
flower.  He  was  too  good  a  man  to  stay  in  the  Presbyterian  church. 
lie  was  a  rose  among  thistles.  He  was  a  dove  among  vultures— and  they 
hunted  him  out,  and  I  am  glad  he  came  out.  I  tell  all  the  churches  to 
drive  all  such  men  out,  and  when  he  comes  I  want  him  to  state  just 
what  lie  thinks.  I  want  him  to  tell  the  people  of  Ctiicago  whether  he 
believes  the  Bible  is  inspired  in  any  sense  except  that  in  which  Shaks- 
peare  was  inspired.  H  >nor  bright  I  tell  you  that  all  the  sweet  and 
beautiful  things  in  the  Bible  would  not  make  one  play  of  Shakspcure,  all 
the  philosophy  in  the  world  would  not  make  one  scene  iti  Hamlet,  all 
the  beauties  of  the  Bible  would  net  make  one  scene  in  the  Midsummer 
Night's  Dream;  all  the  beautiful  things  about  woman  in  the  Bible 
would  not  begin  to  create  such  a  character  as  Perdita  or  Imogene  or 
Miranda.  Not  one. 

I  want  him  to  tell  whether  he  believes  the  Bible  was  inspired  in  any 
other  way  than  Shakspcare  was  inspired.  I  want  him  to  pick  out 
something  as  beautiful  and  tender  as  Burns'  poem  to  Mary  in  Heaven. 
I  want  him  to  tell  whether  he  believes  the  story  about  the  bears  eating 
up  children;  whether  that  is  inspired.  I  want  him  to  tell  whether  he 
considers  that  a  poem  or  not.  I  want  to  know  if  the  same  God  made 
those  bears  that  devoured  the  children  because  they  laughed  at  an  old 
man  out  of  hair.  I  want  to  know  if  the  same  God  that  did  that  is  the 
same  God  who  said,  "  Suffer  little  children  to  come  unto  me,  for  such  is 
the  kingdom  of  Heaven."  I  want  him  to  answer  it,  and  answer  it 
fairly.  Th:it  is  all  I  ask.  I  want  just  the  fair  thing. 

Now,  sometimes  Mr.  Swing  talks  us  though  he  believed  the  Bible, 
and  then  ho  talks  to  me  as  though  he  didn't  believe  the  Bible.  The  day 
he  made  this  sermon  I  think  he  di  I,  just  a  little,  believe  it.  He  is  like 
the  man  that  passed  a  ten  dollar  counterfeit  bill.  He  was  arrested,  and: 
his  father  went  to  see  him  and  said,  "John,  how  could  you  commit  such 
a  crime?  How  could  you  bring  my  gray  hairs  in  sorrow  to  the  grave?" 
"Well,"  he  says,  "father,  I'll  tell  you.  I  got  this  bill  and  some  days  I 
thought  it  was  bad  and  some  days  I  thought  it  was  good,  and  one  day 
when  I  thought  if.  was  good  I  passed  it." 

I  want  it  distinctly  understood  that  I  have  the  greatest  respect  for 
Prof.  Swing,  but  I  want  him  to  tell  whether  the  109lh  psalm  is  inspired. 


SKULLS  AND  REPLIES.  135 

I  want  nim  to  tell  whether  the  passages  I  shall  afterward  read  in  this 
book  are  inspired.      That  is  what  I  want. 

Ingersoll's  Reply  to  Brooke  Herford,  D.D. 

Then  there  is  another  gentleman  here.  His  name  is  Herford.  He 
says  it  is  not  fair  to  apply  the  test  of  truth  to  the  Bible — I  don't  think 
it  is  myself.  He  says  although  Moses  upheld  slavery,  that  he  improved 
it.  They  were  not  quite  as  bad  as  they,  were  before,  and  Heaven  justified 
slavery  at  that  time.  Do  you  believe  that  God  ever  turned  the  arms  of 
children  into  chains  of  slavery  ?  Do  you  believe  that  God  ever  suid  to  a 
man:  "You  can't  have  your  wife  ualess  you  will  be  a  slave!  You 
cannot  have  your  children  unless  you  will  lose  your  liberty;  and  un- 
less you  are  willing  to  throw  them  from  your  heart  forever,  you 
cannot  be  free?"  I  want  Mr.  Hcrford  to  state  whether  he  loves 
such  a  God.  Be  honor  bright  about  it.  Don't  begin  to  talk  about 
civilization,  or  what  the  church  has  done  or  will  do.  Just  walk  right 
up  to  the  ruck  and  say  whether  you  love  and  worship  a  God  that  estab- 
lished slavery.  Honest!  And  love  and  worship  a  God  that  would 
allow  a  little  babe  to  be  torn  from  the  breast  of  its  mother  and  sold  into 
slavery.  Now  tell  it  fair,  Mr.  Herford,  I  want  you  to  tell  the  ladies  in 
your  congregation  that  you  believe  in  a  God  that  allowed  women  to  be 
given  to  the  soldiers.  Tell  them  that,  and  then  if  you  say  it  was  not  the 
God  of  Moses,  then  don't  praise  Moses  any  more.  Don't  do  it.  *  Answer 
these  questions. 

The  Ingersoll  Gattling  Gun  Turned  on  Dr.  Ryder. 

Then  here  is  another  gentleman,  Mr.  Ryder,  the  Rev.  Mr.  Ryder,  and 
he  says  that  Calvinism  is  rejected  by  a  majority  of  Christendom.  He  is 
mistaken.  There  is  what  they  call  the  Evangelical  Alliance.  They  met 
in  this  country  in  1875  or  1876,  and  there  were  present  representatives  of 
all  the  evangelical  churches  in  the  world,  and  they  adopted  a  creed,  and 
that  creed  is  that  man  is  totally  depraved.  That  creed  is  that  there  is  an 
eternal,  universal  Hell,  and  that  every  man  that  docs  not  believe  in  a  cer- 
tain way  is  bound  to  be  damned  forever,  and  that  there  is  only  one  way 
to  be  saved,  and  that  is  by  fuith,  and  by  faith,  alone ;  and  they  would  not 
allow  anybody  to  be  represented  there  that  did  not  believe  that,  and  they 
would  not  allow  a  Uuitariau  there,  and  would  not  have  allowed  Dr. 
Ryder  there,  because  he  takes  away  from  the  Christian  world  the  conso- 
lation naturally  arising  from  the  belief  in  Hell. 

Dr.  Ryder  is  mistaken.  All  the  orthodox  religion  of  the  day  is  Cal- 
vinism. It  believes  in  the  fall  of  man.  It  believes  in  the  atonement. 
It  believes  in  the  eternity  of  Hell,  and  it  believes  in  salvation  by  faith; 
that  is  to  say,  by  credulity. 


130  MISTAKES  OF  1NGERSOLL. 

That  is  what  they  believe,  and  he  is  mistaken ;  and  I  want  to  tell  Dr. 
R}'der  to-day,  if  there  is  a  God,  and  lie  wrote  the  Old  Testament,  there 
is  a  Hell.  The  God  that  wrote  the  Old  Testament  will  have  a  flell. 
And  I  want  to  tell  Dr.  Ryder  another  thing,  that  the  Bible  k-aches  an 
eternity  of  punishment.  want  t>  tell  him  that  the  Bible  upholds  the 
doctrine  ot  Hell.  I  want  to  tell  him  that  if  there  is  no  lleil,  somebody 
ought  to  have  said  so,  and  Jesus  Christ  himself  should  not  have  said: 
"  I  will  at  the  lust  day  say :  '  Depart  from  me,  ye  cursed,  into  everlasting 
fire  prepared  for  the  devil  and  his  angels.'"  It*  there  \vas  not  such  a 
place,  Christ  would  not  have  said:  ''Depart  from  me,  ye  cursed,  and 
these  shall  go  hence  into  everlasting  fire."  And  if  you,  Dr.  Ryder,  are 
depending  for  salvation  on  the  God  that  wrote  the  Old  Testament,  you 
will  inevitably  be  et-Tnally  damned. 

There  is  no  hope  for  you.  It  is  just  as  bad  to  deny  Hell  as  it  is  to 
deny  Heaven.  It  is  just  as  much  blasphemy  to  deny  the  devil  as  to 
deny  God,  according  to  the  orthodox  creed.  Ho  admits  that  the  Jews 
were  polygamists,  but,  he  says,  h.>w  was  it  they  finally  quit  ii  ?  lean 
tell  3Tou — the  soil  was  so  poor  they  couldn't  afford  it.  Prof.  Swing  says 
the  Bible  is  a  poem.  Dr.  Ryder  says  it  is  a  picture.  The  Garden  of 
Eden  is  pictorial;  a  pictorial  snake  and  a  pictorial  woman,  I  suppose, 
and  a  pictorial  man,  and  maybe  it  was  a  pictorial  sin.  And  only  a 
pictorial  atonement. 

Ingeraoll's  Reply  to  Rabbi  Bien. 

Then  there  is  another  gentleman,  and  ho  a  rabbi,  a  Rabbi  Bien,  or 
Bean,  or  whatever  his  name  i*,  and  lie  comes  to  the  defense  of  the  Great 
Law-giver.  There  was  another  rabbi  who  attacked  me  in  Cincinnati, 
and  I  couldn't  help  but  think  of  the  old  saying,  that  a  man  got  off  when 
he  said  the  tallest  man  he  ever  knew,  his  name  was  Short.  And  the 
fattest  man  he  ever  saw,  his  name  was  Lean.  And  it  is  only  necessary 
for  me  to  add  that  this  rabbi  in  Cincinnati  was  Wise. 

The  rabbi  here,  I  will  not  answer  him,  and  I  will  tell  you  why.  Be- 
cause  he  has  taken  himself  outside  of  all  tire  limits  of  a  gentleman; 
because  he  has  taken  it  upon  himself  to  traduce  American  womeu  in 
language  the  beastliest  I  ever  read;  and  any  man  who  says  that  the 
American  women  are  not  just  as  good  women  as  nny  God  can  make, 
and  pick  his  mud  to-day,  is  an  unapprcciative  b.irbarian. 

I  will  let  him  alone  because  he  denounced  all  the  men  in  this  country, 
all  the  members  of  Congress,  all  the  members  of  the  Senate,  and  nil  the 
judges  upon  the  Bench;  in  his  lecture  ho  denounced  them  as  thieves 
and  robbers.  That  won't  do.  I  want  to  remind  him  t'.iat  in  this  country 
the  Jews  were  first  admitted  to  tae  privileges  of  citizens;  that  in  this 
country  they  were  first  given  all  their  rights,  and  I  am  as  much  iu  lavor 


SKULLS  AND  REPLIES.  137 

of  their  having  their  rights  as  I  am  in  favor  of  having  my  own.  But 
when  )i  rabbi  so  far  forgets  himself  as  to  traduce  the  women  and  men  of 
this  country,  I  pronounce  him  a  vulgar  falsifier,  and  let  him  alone. 

Strange,  that  nearly  every  man  that  lias  answered  me,  has  answered 
me  mostly  on  the  same  side.  Strange,  that  nearly  every  man  that  thought 
himself  called  upon  to  defend  the  Bible  was  one  who  did  not  believe  in 
it  himself.  Isn't  it  strange?  They  are  like  some  suspected  people, 
always  anxious  to  show  their  marriage  certificate.  They  want  at  least 
to  convince  the  world  that  they  are  not  as  had  as  I  am. 

Now,  I  want  to  read  you  just  one  or  two  things,  and  then  I  am  going 
to  let  you  go.  I  want  to  see  if  I  have  said  such  awful  things,  and 
whether  I  have  got  any  scripture  to  stand  by  me.  I  will  only  read  two 
or  three  verses.  Does  the  Bible  teach  man  to  enslave  his  brother?  If 
it  does,  it  is  not  the  word  of  God,  unless  God  is  a  slaveholder. 

Moreover,  all  the  children  of  the  strangers  that  do  sojourn  among  you,  of  them 
*hall  yc  buy  of  their  families  which  are  wilh  you,  which  they  beset  in  your  land,  and 
they  shall  be  your  possession.  Yo  shall  take  them  as  an  inheritance  for  your  children 
After  you  to  inherit  them.  They  shall  be  your  bondsmen  forever.  (Old  Testament.) 

Upon  the  limbs  of  unborn  babes  this  fiendish  God  put  the  chains  of 
filavery.  I  hale  him. 

Both  thy  bondmen  and  bondwomen  shall  be  of  the  heathen  round  about  thcc,  and 
them  shall  ye  buy,  bondmen  and  bondwomen. 

Now  let  us  read  what  the  New  Testament  has.  I  could  read  a  great 
<Jeal  more,  but  that  is  enough. 

Servants,  be  obedient  to  them  that  are  your  masters,  according  to  the  flesh  in  fear 
and  trembling,  in  singleness  of  your  heart,  as  unto  Christ. 

This  is  putting  the  dirty  thief  that  steals  your  labor  on  an  equality 
with  Goil. 

Servants,  be  subject  to  your  masters  with  all  fear;  not  only  to  the  good  and  gentle 
but  alsj  10  tho  froward. 

For  ih i.«  is  thankworthy,  if  a  man  for  conscience  toward  God  endure  grief,  suffering 
wrongfully. 

The  idea  of  a  man  on  account  of  conscience  toward  God  stealing 
anoti  er  man,  or  allowing  him  nothing  but  lashes  on  his  back  as  legal- 
tender  for  labor  performed. 

Let  as  miny  servants  as  are  under  the  yoke  count  their  own  masters  worthy  of  all 
honor,  that  the  name  of  God  aud  Ills  doctrine  bo  not  blasphemed. 

How  can  you  blaspheme  the  name  of  God  by  asserting  your  independ- 
ence? How  can  you  blaspheme  the  name  of  a  God  by  striking  fetters 
from  the  limbs  of  men?  I  wish  some  of  your  answers  would  tell  you 
that.  '•  And  they  that  have  believing  masters  let  them  not  despise  them." 
That  is  to  say,  a  good  Christian  could  own  another  believer  in  Jesus 
Clirisl ;  could  own  a  woman  and  her  children,  and  could  sell  the  child 
*way  from  its  mother.  That  is  a  sweet  belief.  O,  hypocrisy! 


133  MISTAKES  OF  INGERSOLL. 

Let  them  not  despise  them  because  they  are  brethren,  but  rather  do  them  service 
because  they  are  faithful  and  beloved,  partakers  of  the  benefit. 

Oh,  what  slush!  Here  is  what  they  loll  the  poor  slave,  so  that  he 
will  serve  the  man  that  stole  his  wife  and  children  from  him : 

For  we  brought  nothing  into  this  world,  and  it  is  certain  we  can  carry  nothing  out. 
Having  food  and  raiment  let  us  be  therewith  content. 

Don't  you  think  that  it  would  do  just  as  well  to  preach  that  to  the 
thieving  man  as  to  the  suffering  slave?  I  think  so.  Then  this  same 
Bible  teaches  witchcraft,  that  spirits  go  into  the  bodies  of  the  man,  and 
pigs;  and  that  God  himself  made  a  trade  with  the  devil,  and  the  devil 
traded  him  off — a  man  for  a  certain  number  of  swine,  and  the  devil  lost 
money  because  the  hogs  ran  right  down  into  the  sea.  He  got  a  corner 
on  that  deal. 

Now  let  us  see  how  they  believed  in  the  rights  of  children : 

If  a  man  havo  a  stubb  >rn  and  a  rebellions  son  which  will  not  obey  the  voice  of  his 
father,  or  the  voice  of  his  mother,  and  that,  when  they  have  chastened  him,  will  not 
barken  unto  them,  then  shall  his  father  nnd  his  mother  lay  hold  on  him,  and  bring 
him  out  unto  the  elders  of  his  city,  and  unto  the  gate  of  his  place.  And  they  s-hall  say 
nnto  the  elders  of  his  city.  This,  our  son,  is  stubborn  and  rebellious,  he  will  not  obey 
our  voice,  he  is  a  glutton  and  a  drunkard.  And  all  the  men  of  his  city  shall  stone  him 
with  stones,  that  he  die,  so  slialt  thou  put  evil  away. 

That  is  a  very  good  way  to  raise  children.  Here  is  the  story  of  Jeph- 
thah.  He  went  oft  and  he  asked  the  Lord  to  let  him  whip  some  people, 
and  he  told  the  Lord  if  He  would  let  him  whip  them, he  would  sacrifice 
to  the  Lord  the  first  thin?  that  met  him  on  his  return  ;  and  the  first  thing 
that  met  him  was  his  own  beautiful  daughter,  and  he  sacrified  her.  Is 
there  a  sadder  story  in  all  the  history  of  tlie  world  than  that?  What 
do  j'ou  think  of  a  man  that  would  sacrifice  his  own  daughter  ?  What  do 
you  think  of  a  God  that  would  receive  that  sacrifice?  Now,  then,  they 
come  to  women  in  this  blessed  gospel,  and  let  us  see  what  the  gospel 
says  about  women.  Then  you  ought  all  to  go  to  church,  girls,  next 
Sunday  and  hear  it.  "  Let  the  woman  learn  in  silence  with  all  subjec- 
tion ;  suffer  not  woman  to  think  nor  usurp  authority  over  man,  for  Adam, 
was  formed  first,  not  Eve." 

Don't  you  see? 

"Adam  was  not  deceived,  but  the  woman  being  deceived  was  in  the 
transgession.  Notwithstanding  all  this  she  shall  be  saved  in  child- 
bearing  if  she  continues  in  faith  and  charity  and  holiness  with  sobriety." 
(That  is  Mr.  Timothy.)  "  But  I  would  have  you  know  that  the  head  of 
every  man  is  Christ,  and  the  head  of  the  woman  is  the  man,  and  the  head 
of  Christ  is  God." 

I  suppose  that  every  old  maid  is  acephalous. 

"  For  a  m;in  indeed  ought  not  to  cover  head,  forasmuch  as  he  is  the 
Image  and  glory  of  God ;  but  the  woman  is  the  glory  of  man.  For  the 
man  is  not  of  the  woman,  but  woman  of  the  man.  Neither  was  the  man 


SKULLS  AND  REPLIES.  13£> 

created  for  the  woman,  but  the  woman  for  the  man.  Wives,  submit 
yourselves  unto  your  own  husband  as  unto  the  Lord,  for  the  husband  is 
the  head  of  the  wife  even  as  Christ  is  the  head  of  the  Church." 

Do  you  hear  that !  You  didn't  know  how  much  we  were  above  you. 
When  you  go  back  to  the  Old  Testament,  to  the  great  law-giver,  you  find 
that  the  woman  has  to  ask  forgiveness  for  having  borne  a  child.  If  it  was. 
a  boy,  thirty-three  days  she  was  unclean ;  if  it  was  a  girl  sixty-six.  Nice 
laws!  Good  laws!  If  there  is  a  pure  thing  in  this  worM,  if  there  is  a 
picture  of  perfect  purity,  it  is  a  mother  with  her  child  in  her  arms. 
Yes,  I  think  more  of  a  good  woman  and  a  child  than  I  do  of  all  the  gods 
I  have  ever  heard  these  people  tell  about.  Just  think  of  this: 

When  thon  goest  forth  to  war  against  thine  enemies,  and  the  Lord  thy  God  hath, 
delivered  them  into  thine  hands,  and  thou  hast  taken  them  captive,  and  secst  arnon» 
the  captive  a  beautiful  woman  and  hast  a  desire  unto  her  that  ihou  wouldst  have  her 
to  thy  wife,  then  thou  ghalt  bring  her  home  to  thine  house,  nnd  she  shall  shave  her 
head,  and  pare  her  nails. 

Wherefore,  ye  must  needs  be  subject  not  only  for  love,  but  for  conscience  sake,  and 
for  this  cause  pay  ye  tribute,  for  they  are  God's  ministers. 

I  despise  this  wretched  doctrine.  Wherever  the  sword  of  rebellion  is 
drawn  in  favor  of  the  right,  I  am  a  rebel.  I  suppose  Alexander,  czar 
of  Russia,  was  put  there  by  the  order  of  God,  was  he  ?  I  am  sorry  he 
was  not  removed  by  the  nihilist  that  shot  at  him  the  other  day. 

I  tell  you  in  a  country  like  that,  where  there  are  hundreds  of  girls  not  1ft 
years  of  age  prisoners  in  Siberia,  simply  for  giving  their  ideas  about 
liberty,  and  we  telegraphed  to  that  country  congratulating  that  wretch 
that  he  was  not  killed,  my  heart  goes  into  the  prison,  my  heart  goes  with 
the  poor  girl  working  as  a  miner  in  the  mines,  crawling  on  her  hands 
and  knees  getting  the  precious  ore  out  of  the  mines,  and  my  sympathies 
go  with  her,  and  my  symphathies  cluster  around  the  point  of  the  dagger. 

Does  the  Bible  describe  a  God  of  mercy  ?  Let  me  read  you  a  verse  or 
two. 

I  will  make  my  arrows  drunk  with  blood,  and  my  sword  shall  devour  flesh.  Thy 
foot  may  be  dipped  in  the  blood  of  thine  enemies. 

And  the  tongue  of  thy  dogs  in  the  same. 

And  the  Lord  thy  God  will  put  out  those  nations  before  thce  by  little  and  little; 
thon  inayest  not  consume  them  at  once,  lest  the  beasts  of  the  field  increase  upon  thee. 

But  the  Lord  thy  God  shall  deliver  them  unto  thee,  and  shall  destroy  them  with  a. 
mighty  destruction,  until  they  be  destroyed. 

And  He  shall  deliver  their  kings  unto  thine  hand,  and  thon  shalt  destroy  their 
name  from  under  Heaven ;  then  shall  no  mau  be  able  to  stand  before  thee,  until  thou 
have  destroyed  them. 

I  can  see  what  he  had  her  nails  pared  for.  Does  the  Bible  teach 
polygamy  ? 

The  Rev.  Dr.  Newman,  consul  general  to  all  the  world — had  a  discus- 
sion with  Elder  Heber  or  Kimball,  or  some  such  wretch  in  Utah — 


140  MISTAKES  OF  INOERSOLL. 

"whether  the  Bible  sustains  polygamy,  and  the  Mormons  have  printed 
that  discussion  as  a  campaign  document.  Read  the  order  of  Moses  in 
the  31st  chapter  of  Numbers.  A  great  many  chapters  I  dare  not  read  to 
you.  They  are  too  fill hy.  I  leave  all  that  to  the  clergy.  Read  the  31st 
chapter  of  Exodus,  the  31st  chapter  of  Deuieronomy,  the  life  of  Abra- 
ham, and  the  life  of  David,  and  the  life  of  Solomon,  and  then  tell  me 
that  the  Bible  does  not  uphold  polygamy  and  concubinage! 

Let  them  answer.  Then  I  said  that  the  Bible  upheld  tyranny.  Let 
me  read  you  a  little:  "Let  every  soul  be  subject  to  the  higher  powers — 
the  powers  that  be  are  ordained  of  God." 

George  III.  was  king  by  the  grace  of  God,  and  when  our  fathers  rose 
in  rebellion,  according  to  this  doctrine,  they  rose  against  the  power  of 
God ;  and  if  they  did  they  were  successful. 

And  so  it  goes  on  telling  of  all  the  cities  that  were  destroyed,  and  of 
the  great-hearted  men,  that  they  dashed  their  brains  out,  and  all  the 
little  babes,  and  all  the  swoet  women  that  they  killed  and  plundered — 
all  in  the  name  of  a  most  merciful  God.  Well,  think  of  it!  T4$c  Old 
Testament  is  filled  with  anathemas,  and  with  curses,  and  with  words  of 
revenge,  and  jealousy,  and  hatred,  and  meanness,  and  brutality. 

Have  1  read  enough  to  show  that  what  I  said  is  so?  I  think  I  have. 
I  wish  I  had  time  to  read  to  you  further  of  what  the  dear  old  fathers  of 
the  church  said  about  wo.nao — wait  a  minute,  and  I  will  read  you  a 
little.  We  have  got  them  running. 

St.  Augustine  in  his  22d  book  says:  "A  woman  ought  to  serve  her 
husband  as  unto  God,  affirming  that  woman  ought  to  be  braced  and 
bridled  beti.nes,  if  she  aspire  to  any  dominion,  alleging  that  dangerous 
And  perilous  it  is  to  suffer  her  to  precede,  although  it  be  in  temporal 
and  corporeal  things.  How  can  woman  be  in  the  image  of  God,  seeing 
she  is  subject  to  man,  and  hath  no  authority  to  teach,  neither  to  be  a 
witness,  neither  to  judge,  much  less  to  rule  or  bear  the  rod  of  empire." 

Oh,  he  is  a  good  one.  These  are  the  very  words  of  Augustine.  Let 
me  read  some  more.  "Woman  shall  bo  subject  unto  man  as  unto 
Christ."  That  is  St.  Augustine,  and  this  sentence  of  Augustine  ought  to 
be  noted  of  all  women,  for  in  it  he  plainly  affirms  that  women  are  all  the 
more  subject  to  man.  And  now,  St.  Ambrose,  he  is  a  good  b.>y.  "Adam 
was  deceived  by  Eve — called  lleva — and  not  I  leva  by  Adam,  and  there- 
fore just  it  is  that  woman  receive  and  acknowledge  him  for  governor 
whom  she  called  sin,  lest  that  again  she  slip  and  fall  with  womanly 
facility."  Don't  you  see  that  woman  has  sinned  once,  and  man  never  ?  If 
you  give  woman  an  opportunity,  she  will  sin  again,  whereas  if  you  give  it 
to  man,  whenever,  never,  never  betrayed  his  trust  in  the  world,  nothing 
bad  can  happen.  "  Let  women  be  subject,  to  their  own  husbands  as  unto 
the  Lord,  for  man  is  the  head  of  woman,  and  Christ  is  the  head  of  the 


SKULLS  AND  REPLIES.  14t 

congregation."  They  are  all  real  good  men,  all  of  them.  "It  is  not 
permitted  to  woman  to  speak;  let  her  be  in  silence;  as  the  law  said: 
unto  thy  husband  shalt  thou  ever  be,  and  he  shall  bear  dominion  over 
thce." 

So  St.  Chrysostom.  He  is  another  good  man.  "  Woman,"  he  says, 
"was  put  under  the  power  of  man,  and  man  was  pronounced  lord  over 
her;  that  she  should  obey  man,  that  the  head  should  not  follow  the  feet. 
False  priests  do  commonly  deceive  women,  because  they  are  easily  per- 
suaded to  any  opinion,  especially  if  it  be  again  given,  and  because  they 
lack  prudence  and  right  reason  to  judge  the  things  that  be  spoken; 
which  should  not  be  the  nature  of  those  that  are  appointed  to  govern 
others.  For  they  should  be  constant,  stable,  prudent,  and  doing  every- 
thing with  discretion  and  reason:  which  virtues  woman  can  not  have 
in  equality  with  man." 

I  tell  you  women  are  more  prudent  than  men.  I  tell  you,  as  a  rule,^ 
women  are  more  truthful  then  men.  I  tell  -you  that  women  are  more 
faithful  than  men — ten  times  as  faithful  as  man.  I  never  saw  a  man 
pursue  his  wife  into  the  very  ditch  and  dust  of  degradation  and  take  her 
in  his  arras.  I  never  saw  a  man  stand  at  the  shore  where  she  had  been 
morally  wrecked,  waiting  for  the  waves  to  bring  back  even  her  corpse  to- 
his  arms;  but  I  have  seen  woman  do  it.  I  have  seen  woman  with  her 
white  arms  lift  man  from  the  mire  of  degradation,  and  hold  him  to  her 
bosom  as  though  he  were  an  angel. 

And  these  men  thought  woman  not  fit  to  be  held  as  pure  in  the  sight 
of  God  as  man.  I  never  saw  a  man  that  pretended  that  he  didn't  love  a 
woman ;  that  pretended  that  he  loved  God  better  than  he  did  a  woman, 
that  he  didn't  look  hateful  to  me,  hateful  and  unclean.  I  could  read 
you  twenty  others,  but  I  haven't  time  to  do  it.  They  are  all  to  the  same- 
eflect  exactly.  They  hate  woman,  and  say  man  is  as  much  above  her  as 
God  is  above  man.  I  am  a  believer  in  absolute  equality.  I  am  a  be- 
liever in  absolute  liberty  between  man  and  wife.  I  believe  in  liberty, 
and  I  say,  "  Oh,  liberty,  float  not  forever  in  the  far  horizon — remain  notv 
forever  in  the  dream  of  the  enthusiast,  the  philanthropist  and  poet;  bu 
come  and  make  thy  home  among  the  children  of  men." 

I  know  not  what  discoveries,  what  inventions,  what  thoughts  may 
leap  from  the  brain  of  the  world.  I  know  not  what  garments  of  glory 
may  be  woven  by  the  years  to  come.  I  can  not  dream  of  the  victories 
to  be  won  upon  the  field  ot  thought;  but  I  do  know  that,  coming  down 
the  infinite  sea  of  the  future,  there  will  never  touch  this  "  bank  and  shoal 
of  time  "  a  richer  gift,  a  rarer  blessing  than  liberty  for  man,  woman  and 
child. 

I  never  addressed  a  more  magnificent  audience  in  my  life,  and  I  thank, 
you,  I  thank  you  a  thousand  times  over. 


143  MISTAKES  OF  INGERSOLL. 

\ 

Ingersoll's  Catechism  and  Bible  Class. 

Nothing  is  more  gratifying  than  to  see  ideas  that  were  received  with 
scorn,  flourishing  in  the  sunshine  of  approval.  Only  a  few  weeks  ago 
I  stated  that  the  Bible  was  not  inspired ;  that  Moses  was  mistaken  ;  that 
the  "flood  "  was  a  foolish  myth;  that  the  Tower  of  Bauel  existed  only 
incredulity;  that  God  did  not  create  the  universe  from  nothing,  that 
He  did  not  start  the  first  woman  with  a  rib;  that  He  never  upheld 
slavery;  that  He  was  not  a  polygarnist;  that  He  did  not  kill  people  for 
making  hair-oil :  that  He  did  not  order  His  Generals  to  kill  the  dimpled 
babes ;  that  He  did  not  allow  the  roses  of  love  and  the  violets  of  modesty 
to  be  trodden  under  the  brutal  feet  of  lust ;  that  the  Hebrew  language 
was  written  without  vowels;  that  the  Bible  was  composed  of  many 
books  written  by  unknown  men ;  that  all  translations  differed  from  each 
other,  and  that  this  book  had  filled  the  world  with  agony  and  crime. 

At  that  time  I  had  not  the  remotest  idea  that  the  most  learned  clergy- 
men in  Chicago  would  substantially  agree  with  me— in  public.  I  have 
read  the  replies  of  the  Rev.  Robert  Collyev,  Dr.  Thomas,  Rabbi  Kohler, 
Rev.  Brooke  Herford,  Prof  Swing,  and  Dr.  Ryder,  and  will  now  ask 
them  a  few  questions,  answering  them  in  their  own  words : 

First,  Rev.  ROBERT  COLLYER:  Question.  What  is  your  opinion  of 
the  Bible  ?  Answer.  "  It  is  a  splendid  book.  It  makes  the  noblest  type 
of  Catholics  and  the  meanest  bigots.  Through  this  book  men  give  their 
hearts  for  good  to  God,  or  for  evil  to  the  Devil.  The  best  argument  for 
the  intrinsic  greatness  of  the  book  is  that  it  can  touch  such  wide 
extremes,  and  seem  to  maintain  us  in  the  most  unparalleled  cruelty,  as 
well  as  the  most  tender  mercy;  that  it  can  inspire  purity  like  that  of 
the  great  saints  and  afford  arguments  in  favor  of  polygamy.  The  Bible 
is  the  text  book  of  ironclad  Calvinism  and  sunny  Universal  ism.  It 
makes  the  Quaker  quiet  and  the  Millerite  crazy.  It  inspired  the  Union 
soldier  to  live  and  grandly  die  for  the  right,  and  Stonewall  Jackson  to 
live  nobly  and  die  grandly  for  the  wrong." 

Q.  But,  Mr.  Collyer,  do  you  really  think  that  a  book  with  as  many 
passages  in  favor  of  wrong  as  right,  is  inspired  ?  A.  "  I  look  upon  the 
Old  Testament  as  a  rotting  tree.  When  it  falls  it  will  fertilize  a  bank 
of  violets." 

Q.  Do  you  believe  that  God  upheld  slavery  and  polygamy?  Do 
you  believe  that  He  ordered  the  killing  of  babes  and  the  violation  of 
maidens  ?  A.  "  There  is  three-fold  inspiration  in  the  Bible,  the  first 
peerless  and  perfect,  the  Word  of  God  to  man ;  the  second  simply  and 
purely  human,  and  then  below  this  again,  there  is  an  inspiration  born 
of  nn  evil  heart,  ruthless  and  savage  there  and  then  as  anything  well 
can  be.  A  three-fold  inspiration,  of  Heaven  first,  then  of  the  Earth,  and 


SKULLS  AND  REPLIES.  143 

then  of  Hell,  all  in  the  same  book,  all  sometimes  in  the  same  chapter, 
and  then,  besides,  a  great  many  things  that  need  no  inspiration." 

Q.  Then,  after  all,  you  do  not  pretend  that  the  Scriptures  are  really 
inspired  ?  A.  "  The  Scriptures  make  no  such  claim  for  themselves  as 
the  Church  makes  for  them.  They  leave  me  free  to  say  this  is  false,  or 
this  is  true.  The  truth  even  within  the  Bible  dies  and  lives,  makes  on 
this  side  and  loses  on  that." 

Q.  What  do  you  say  to  the  last  verse  in  the  Bible,  •where  a  curse  is 
threatened  to  any  man  who  takes  from  or  adds  to  the  book ?  A.  "I 
have  but  one  answer  to  this  question,  and  it  is:  Let  who  will  have  writ- 
ten this,  I  can  not  lor  an  instant  believe  that  it  was  written  by  a  divino 
inspiration.  Such  dogmas  and  threats  as  these  arc  not  of  God,  but  of 
man,  and  not  of  any  man  of  a  free  spirit  and  .  heart  eager  for  the  truth, 
but  a  narrow  man  who  would  cripple  and  confine  the  hurnau  soul  in 
Its  quest  after  the  whole  truth  of  God,  and  back  those  who  have  done 
the  shameful  things  in  the  name  «.f  the  Most  High." 

Q.  Do  you  not  regard  such  talk  as  "  slang  ?*' 

(Supposed)  Answer.  If  an  infidel  had  said  that  the  writer  of  Revela- 
tions was  narrow  and  bigoted,  I  might  have  denounced  his  discourse 
as  "  slang,"  but  I  think  that  Unitarian  ministers  can  do  so  with  the 
greatest  propriety. 

Q.  Do  you  believe  in  the  stories  of  the  Bible,  about  Jael,  and  the  sun 
standing  still,  and  the  walls  falling  at  the  blowing  of  horns  ?  A.  ''They 
may  be  legends,  myths,  poems,  or  what  they  will,  but  they  are  not  the 
Word  of  God.  So  I  say  again,  it  was  not  the  God  and  Father  of  us  all 
•who  inspired  the  woman  to  drive  that  nail  crashing  through  ihe  king's 
temple  after  she  had  given  him  that  b:>wl  of  milk  and  bid  him  sleep  in 
safety,  but  a  very  mean  Devil  of  hatred  and  revenge  that  I  should 
hardly  expect  to  find  in  a  squaw  on  the  plains.  It  was  not  the  ram'a 
horns  and  the  shouting  before  which  the  walls  fell  flat.  If  they  went 
down  at  all,  it  was  through  good  solid  pounding.  And  not  for  an  in- 
stant did  the  steady  sun  stand  still  or  let  his  planet  stuud  still  while  bar- 
barian fought  barbarian.  He  kept  j  ust  the  time  then  he  keeps  now. 
They  might  believe  it  who  made  the  record.  I  do  not.  And  since  the 
whole  Christian  world  might  believe  it,  still  we  do  not  who  gather  in 
this  church.  A  free  and  reasonable  mind  stands  right  in  our  way. 
Newton  might  believe  it  as  a  Christian  and  disbelieve  it  as  a  philoso- 
pher. We  stand  then  with  the  philosopher  against  the  Christian,  for 
we  must  believe  what  is  true  to  us  in  the  last  test,  and  these  things  are 
not  true." 

SECOND,  REV.  DR.  THOMAS.  Question.  What  is  your  opinion  of  the 
Old  Testament?  Answer.  "My  opinion  is  that  it  is  not  one  book,  but 
many — thirty-nine  books  bound  up  m  one.  The  date  and  authorship 


144  MISTAKES  OF  INGERSOLL. 

of  most  of  these  books  are  wholly  unknown.  The  Hebrews  wrote  with- 
out vowels  and  without  dividing  the  letters  into  syllables,  words  or  sen- 
tences. The  books  were  gathered  up  by  Ezra.  At  that  time  only  two 
of  the  Jewish  tribes  remained.  All  progress  had  ceased.  In  gathering 
up  the  sacred  book,  copyists  exercised  great  liberty  in  making  changes 
and  additions." 

Q.  Yes,  we  know  all  that,  but  is  the  Old  Testament  inspired  ?  A. 
"  There  may  be  the  inspiration  of  art,  of  poetry,  or  oratory ;  of  patriot- 
ism— and  there  are  such  inspirations.  There  are  moments  when  great 
truths  and  principles  come  to  men.  They  seek  the  man  and  not  tho 
man  them." 

Q.  Yes,  we  all  admit  that,  but  is  the  Bible  inspired  ?  A.  "  But  still 
I  know  of  no  way  to  convince  any  one  of  spirit  and  inspiration  and 
Jod  only  as  His  reason  may  take  hold  of  these  things." 

Q.  Do  you  think  the  Old  Testament  true  ?  A.  "  The  story  of  Eden 
may  be  an  allegory ;  the  history  of  the  children  of  Israel  may  have  mis- 
takes." 

Q.  Must  inspiration  claim  infallibility  ?  A.  "  It  is  a  mistake  to  say 
that  if  you  believe  one  part  of  the  Bible  you  must  believe  all.  Some  of 
the  thirty-nine  books  may  be  inspired,  others  not;  or  there  may  b<v 
degrees  of  inspiration." 

Q.  Do  you  believe  that  God  commanded  the  soldiers  to  kill  the  chil- 
dren and  the  married  women  and  save  for  themselves  the  maidens,  as 
recorded  in  Numbers  31 : 2?  Do  you  believe  that  God  upheld  slavery? 
Do  you  believe  that  God  upheld  polygamy?  A.  "The  Bible  may  bo 
wrong  in  some  statements.  God  and  right  can  not  be  wrong.  We  must 
not  exalt  the  Bible  above  God.  It  may  be  that  we  have  claimed  too 
much  for  the  Bible,  and  thereby  given  not  a  little  occasion  for  such  men. 
as  Mr.  Ingersoll  to  appear  at  the  other  extreme,  denying  too  much." 

Q.  What  then  shall  be  done  ?  A.  "  We  must  take  a  middle  ground. 
It  is  not  necessary  to  believe  that  the  bears  devoured  the  forty-two  chiK 
dren,  nor  that  Jonah  was  swallowed  by  the  whale." 

THIRD,  REV.  DR.  KOHLER.  Question.  What  is  your  opinion  about 
tho  Old  Testament?  Answer.  "I  will  not  make  futile  attempts  of  arti- 
ficially interpreting  the  letter  of  the  Bible  so  as  to  make  it  reflect  the 
philosophical,  moral  and  scientific  views  of  our  time.  The  Bible  is  a 
sacred  record  of  humanity's  childhood." 

Q.  Arc  you  an  orthodox  Christian  ?  A.  "  No.  Orthodoxy,  with  its 
face  turned  backward  to  a  ruined  temple  or  a  dead  Messiah,  is  fast 
becoming  like  Lot's  wife,  a  pillar  of  salt." 

Q.  Do  you  really  believe  the  Old  Testament  was  inspired?  A.  "I 
greatly  acknowledge  our  indebtedness  to  men  like  Voltaire  and  Thomas 
Paine,  whose  bold  denial  and  cutting  wit  were  so  instrumental  in  bring- 


SKULLS  AND  REPLIES.  145 

Ing  about  this  glorious  era  of  freedom,  so  congenial  and  blissful,  par 
ticularly  to  the  long-abused  Jewish  race." 

Q.  Do  you  believe  in  the  inspiration  of  the  Bible?  A.  "Of  course 
there  is  a  destructive  axe  needed  to  strike  down  the  old  building  in  order 
to  make  room  for  the  grander  new.  The  divine  origin  claimed  by  the 
Hebrews  for  their  national  literature  was  claimed  by  all  nations  for  their 
old  records  and  laws  as  preserved  by  the  priesthood.  As  Moses,  the 
Hebrew  l;iw-giver,  is  repix-sented  as  having  received  the  law  from.  Gotten 
the  holy  mountain,  so  is  Zoroaster,  the  Persian,  Manu,  the  Hindoo,  Minos, 
the  Cretan,  Lycurgus,  the  Spartan,  and  Numa,  the  Roman." 

Q.    Do  you  believe  all  the  stories  in  the  Bible?    A.    "All  that  can \ 
and  must  be  said  against  them  is  that  they  have  been  too  long  retained  \ 
around  the  arms  and  limbs  of  grown-up  manhood  to  check  the  spiritual    \ 
progress  of  religion ;  that  by  Jewish  ritualism  and  Christian  dogmatism 
they  became  fetters  unto  the  soul,  turning  the  light  of  Heaven  into  a    J 
misty  haze  to  blind  the  eye,  and  even  into  a  Hell  fire  of  fanaticism  to.' 
consume  souls." 

Q.  Is  the  Bible  inspired?  A.  "True,  the  Bible  is  not  free  from 
errors,  nor  is  any  work  of  man  and  time.  It  abounds  in  childish  views 
and  offensive  matters.  I  trust  that  it  will,  in  a  time  not  far  off,  be  pre- 
sented for  common  Tise  in  families,  schools,  synagogues  and  churches, 
in  a  refined  shape,  cleansed  from  all  dross  and  chaff,  and  stumbling, 
blocks  on  which  the  scoffer  delights  to  dwell." 

FOURTH,  REV.  MR.  HERPORD.  Question.  Is  the  Bible  true  ?  Answer. 
"Ingersoll  is  very  fond  of  saying  'The  question  is  not,  is  the  Bible 
inspired,  but  is  it  true  ?'  That  sounds  very  plausible,  but  you  know  as 
applied  to  any  ancient  book  it  is  simply  nonsense." 

Q.  Do  you  think  the  stories  in  the  Bible  exaggerated ?  A.  "I  dare 
say  the  numbers  are  immensely  exaggerated." 

Q.  Do  you  think  that  God  upheld  polygamy  ?  A.  "The  truth  of 
which  simply  is,  that  four  thousand  years  ago  polygamy  existed  among 
the  Jews,  as  everywhere  else  on  earth  then,  and  even  their  prophets  did 
not  come  to  the  idea  of  its  being  wrong.  But  what  is  there  to  be  indig- 
nant/ about  in  that  ?" 

Q.  And  so  you  really  wonder  why  any  man  should  be  indignant  at 
the  idea  that  God  upheld  and  sanctioned  that  beastliness  called  polyg- 
amy ?  A.  "  Whf  t  is  there  to  be  indignant  about  in  that?" 

FIFTH,  PROP.  SWING.  Question.  What  is  your  idea  of  the  Bible? 
Answer.  '•  I  think  it  a  poem." 

SIXTH,  REV.  DR.  RYDER.  Question.  And  what  is  your  idea  of  the 
sacred  Scriptures?  Answer.  "Like  other  nations,  the  Hebrews  had 
their  patriotic,  descriptive,  didactic  and  lyrical  poems  in  the  same 
varieties  as  other  nations;  but  with  them,  unlike  other  nations,  what- 


140  INQERSOLUS  FUNERAL  ORATION 

ever  may  be  the  form  of  their  poetry,  it  always  possesses  the  character- 
istic of  religion." 

Q.  I  suppose  you  fully  appreciate  the  religious  characteristics  of  tho 
Song  of  Solomon  ?  No  answer. 

Q.  Does  the  Bible  uphold  polygamy  ?  A.  "  The  law  of  Moses  did 
not  forbid  it,  but  contained  many  provisions  against  its  worst  abuses, 
and  such  as  were  intended  to  restrict  it  within  narrow  limits." 

Q.  So  you  think  God  corrected  some  of  the  worst  abuses  of  polyg- 
amy, but  preserved  the  institution  itself? 

I  might  question  many  others,  but  have  concluded  not  to  consider 
those  as  members  of  my  Biblo  class  who  deal  in  calumnies  and  epithets. 
From  the  so-called  "replies  "of  such  ministers  it  appears  that,  while 
Christianity  changes  the  heart,  it  does  not  improve  the  manners,  and 
that  one  can  get  into  Heaven  in  the  next  world  without  having  been  a 
gentleman  in  this. 

It  is  difficult  for  me  to  express  the  deep  and  thrilling  satisfaction  I 
have  experienced  in  reading  the  admissions  of  the  clergy  of  Chicago. 
Surely  the  battle  of  intellectual  liberty  is  almost  won  when  ministers 
admit  that  the  Bible  is  filled  with  ignorant  and  cruel  mistakes;  that 
each  man  has  the  right  to  think  for  himself,  and  that  it  is  not  necessary 
to  believe  the  Scriptures  in  order  to  be  saved. 

From  the  bottom  of  my  heart  I  congratulate  my  pupils  on  th° 
advance  they  havo  made,  and  hope  soon  to  meet  them  on  the  serene 
heights  of  perfect  freedom. 


AT  HIS  BROTHER'S  ORATE 


The  funeral  of  Hon.  Ebon  C.  lugersoll,  brother  of  Col.  Robert  G.  Ingor- 
soil,  of  Illinois,  took  place  at  his  residence  in  Washington,  D.  C.,  Juno 
2,  1879.  The  ceremonies  were  extremely  simple,  consisting  merely  of 
viewing  the  remains  by  relatives  ami  friends,  and  a  funeral  oration  by 
Col.  liobert  G.  Ingersoll,  brother  of  the  deceased.  A  large  number  of 
distinguished  gentlemen  were  present,  including  Secretary  Sherman, 
Assistant  Secretary  Hawk'}',  Senators  Blame,  Voorhces,  Paddock,  Alii- 
son,  Logan,  lion.  Thomas  Henderson,  Gov.  Pound,  lion.  Win.  M.  Mor- 
rison, Gen.  Jeffreys,  Gen.  Williams,  Col.  James  Fishback,  and  others. 
The  pall-bearers  were  Senators  Blainc,  Voorhees,  David  Davis.  Paddock 
and  Allison,  Col.  Ward,  II.  Lamon,  lion.  Jeremiah  Wilson  of  Indiana, 
and  lion.  Thomas  A.  Boyd  of  Illinois. 


AT  HIS  BROTHERS  GRAVE.  147 

Soon  after  Mr.  Insrersoll  began  to  read  his  eloquent  characterization 
of  the  dead,  his  eyes  filled  with  tears.  He  tried  to  hide  them  behind 
his  eye-glasses,  but  he  could  not  do  it,  and  finally  he  bowed  his  head 
upon  the  dead  man's  coffin  in  uncontroluble  grief.  It  was  after  some 
delay  and  the  greatest  efforts  at  self-mastery,  that  Col.  Ingersoll  was 
able  to  finish  reading  his  address,  which  was  as  follows : 

Colonel  Ingersoll's  Funeral  Oration. 

MY  FRIENDS:  I  am  going  to  do  that  which  the  dead  often  promised 
he  would  do  for  me.  The  loved  and  loving  brother,  husband,  father, 
friend,  died  where  manhood's  morning  almost  touches  noon,  and  while 
the  t-hadows  siill  were  falling  toward  the  West.  He  had  not  passed  on 
life's  highway  the  slone  that  marks  the  highest  point,  but  being  weary 
for  a  moment  he  laid  clown  by  the  Avayside,  and,  using  his  burden  for  a 
pillow,  fell  iulo  that  dreamless  sleep  that  kisses  down  his  eyelids  still. 
While  yet  in  love  wiih  life  and  raptured  wiih  the  world,  he  passed  to 
silence  and  pathetic  dust.  Yet,  after  ail,  it  may  be  best,  just  in  the  hap- 
piest, sunniest  hour  of  all  the  voyage,  while  eager  winds  are  kissing 
c-very  sail,  to  dash  against  the  unseen  rock,  and  in  an  instant  hear  the 
billows  roar  a  sunken  hhip.  For,  whether  in  mid-sea  or  among  the 
breakers  oi  tlie  farther  shore,  a  wreck  must  mark  at  last  the  end  of 
each  Jind  all.  And  every  life,  no  matter  if  its  every  hour  is  rich  with 
l»ve  and  every  moment  jeweled  with  a  joy,  will,  at  its  close,  become  a 
tragedy,  us  sad,  and  deep,  and  dark  as  can  bo  woven  of  the  warp  and 
\vo  >r  of  mysiery  and  death.  This  brave  and  tender  man  in  every  storm 
of  life  was  oak  and  rock,  but  in  the  sunshine  he  was  vine  and  flower. 
He  was  the  friend  of  all  heroic  souls.  He  climbed  the  heights  and  left 
all  superstitions  far  below,  while  on  his  forehead  fell  the  golden  dawning 
of  si  grander  day.  He  loved  the  beautiful  and  was  with  color,  form 
and  music  touched  to  tears.  He  sided  with  the  weak,  and  with  a  will  ing 
hand  gave  alms  ;  with  loyal  heart  and  wiih  the  purest  hand  he  faith- 
fuily  discharged  all  public  trusts.  He  was  a  worshipprr  of  libeity  and 
a  friend  of  the  oppressed.  A  thousand  times  I  have  heard  him  quote 
the  words  :  "For  justice  all  place  a  temple  and  all  season  summer." 
He  believed  that  happiness  was  the  only  good,  reason  the  only  torch, 
justice  the  only  worshipper,  humanity  the  only  religion,  and  love  the 
priest. 

He  added  to  the  sum  of  human  joy,  and  were  every  one  for  whom 
hrdid  some  loving  service  to  bring  a  blossom  to  his  grave  he  would 
sleep  to-night  beuealh  a  wilderness  of  flowers.  Life  is  a  narrow  vale 
between  ilie  cold  and  barren  peaks  of  two  eternities.  We  strive  in  vain 
to  look  beyond  the  heights.  We  cry  aloud,  and  the  only  answer  is  the 
echo  of  our  wailing  cry.  From  the  voiceless  lips  of  the  unreplying 
tlea;l  there  comes  no  word;  but  in  the  night  of  death  hope  sees  a  star 
aud  listening  love  can  hear  the  rusile  of  a  wing.  He  who  sleeps  here, 
wlr.-:i  dying,  nvstakiug  the  approach  of  death  for  the  return  of  health, 
whispered  with  his  la'est  breath,  "  I  am  better  now."  Let  us  believe, 
in  spite  of  doubt*  and  dogmas  and  tears  and  fears  that  these  dear  words 
are  ti  tie  of  ail  the  countless  dead.  An*  now,  to  you  who  have  been 
-chosen  from  among  'ho  many  men  he  loved  to  do  the  lasts  id  office  for 
the  dead,  we  give  his  sacred  dust.  Speech  can  not  contain  our  love. 
There  ,vuc— there  is— no  gentler,  stronger,  manlier  man. 


148  INGERSOLDS  FUNERAL  ORATION. 

BEECHER'S  COMMENTS, 


Henry  Ward  Bsecher's  Comments  on  Mr.  Ingersoll'a   Faith,  and 

Funeral  Discourse. 

"  The  root  element  of  faith  is  iu  the  imagination.  The  tendency  of 
our  age,  or  in  certain  lines  of  it,  is  a  rising  tendency  among  the  educated 
to  give  to  the  evidence  of  the  physical  senses  not  only  greater  weight 
than  comes  with  the  imagination,  but  to  deny  to  the  imagination  all  use 
except  that  of  producing  pleasure.  To  a  certain  extent  we  are  indebted 
for  this  to  the  perversion  of  religious  views.  The  ascetic  school  ban- 
\  ished  the  imagination  from  religion  and  made  it  a  mere  minion  of 
pleasure  and  turned  the  thoughts  of  men  to  what  are  called  weightier 
things.  We  arc  told  in  the  t-erious  words  of  the  ascetic  teachers  that 
life  is  too  important  to  trifle  away.  They  have  stripped  oil' the  wings 
,  of  the  imagination  to  make  quills  to  write  their  dull  treatises  withal. 
There  is  also  danger  from  the  scientific  or  materialistic  tendencies  ot 
the  age,  the  votaries  of  which  hold  that  all  things  must  be  proven  by 
tangible  evidence — that  the  soul  is  but  matter.  But  taking  the  mate- 
rialistic view  that  the  soul  is  but  matter,  it  is  matter  so  different  from  or. 
dinary  matter  that  it  is  to  be  judged  by  entirely  diff  rent  laws.  But 
•without  taking  that  ground  and  adhering  as  I  do  to  the  ground  that  it 
is  a  spiritual  matter,  the  necessity  is  much  stronger  lor  applying  the  true 
principle  in  dealing  with  its  consideration. 

"There  is  a  growing  tendency  towards  materialism  in  the  German 
mind,  and  this  has  long  been  the  tendency  of  the  French  mind.    It  has- 
made  inroads  into  the  sturdy  old  English  mind,  and  it  has  with  ten 
thousand  other  immigrants  that  we  could  have  spared  come  across  the 
seas  and  gained  a  foothold  here.    But  to  apply  to  the  imagination  tho 
same  rules  you  apply  to  things  that  have  no  imagination  is  impolitic, 
unphilosophical  nnd  unwise.    There  arc  a  great  many  men  who  say 
/•with  Tyndall:  '  If  you  present  God  ns  a  poem  I  can  accept  it,  but  if 
/  you  present  Him  as  a  fact  I  resist  it;  I  say  there  is  no  evidence:  it  is  not 
I    proven.'    There  arc  realities  which  can  not  be  proven.    No  formula  can 
I   demonstrate  the  sentiment  of  honor;    yet  honor  demonstrates  itself, 
\  and   the  intellect   discerns  things  by  the  aid  of  the  imagination  that 
\it  can  not  discern  without  it.    Reasonings  ure  uo   more  than  spider- 
y-ebbing*, -j 

"  That  which  comforts  must  be  accepted  as  true,  although  it  can  not  bo 
roveu  by  nny  direct  line  of  evidence.    Take,  for  instance,  the  pictures 
of  the  Virgin  Mary  which  arc  the  objects  of  such  veneration  to  devout 


BEECHERS  COMMENTS.  149 

Roman  Catholics.  They  are  not  really  the  Virgin  Mary;  they  don't 
even  look  like  her;  but  they  are  a  representation  of  the  tenderness  of 
the  mother  towards  the  child,  and  that  tenderness  is  a  reality.  I,  too, 
hang  the  pictures  in  my  parlor  and  in  my  bedroom,  and  I,  too,  am  a 
worshipper  of  the  Virgin.  1  worship  the  tender,  loving  spirit  of  God 
out  of  which  theology  has  cheated  us.  Put  that  in  theology  and  you 
would  not  want  any  pictorial  illustration.  So  as  to  ministering  angels; 
I  never  thought  of  an  angel  except  with  wings.  I  never  saw  an  angel 
painted  wi  h  wings  that  it  did  not  look  like  an  old  hen  to  me.  So  with 
ministering  angels.  The  moment  you  apply  to  them  all  that  belongs  to 
them  that  moment  you  destroy  them. 

''A  French  philosopher  once  said  very  truly:  '  Every  body  believes  in 
God  until  you  attempt  to  prove  his  existence.'  Take  the  existence  of  the 
soul  in  heaven — that  is  a  mere  question  of  reason  without  evidence  such 
as  belongs  to  regulated  forms  of  matter — and  it  is  full  of  obscurities 
But  k-t  it  hang  in  the  realm  of  imagination  and  it  is  not  only  the  product 
of  Ihe  imagination  of  one  man,  but  of  all  the  nations  through  the  growth 
of  time.  It  is  the  imagination  that  has  been  reaped  and  threshed  and 
winnowed  and  grown  into  the  very  bread  of  life.  It  is  not  any  poem 
or  notion;  it  is  the  work,  the  final  work  of  the  imagination  of  the 
human  race,  speaking  all  languages,  under  all  governments;  it  is  the 
result,  to  which  men  come — that  death  doesn't  stop  human  life;  it  goes 
on  unending. 

"  Air.  Ingersoll  is  a  man  of  great  merit  and  power  and  he  has  made 
himself  perhaps  as  widely  known  as  almost  any  other  man  in  this  gen- 
eration by  his  contemning  of,  I  will  not  say  religion,  but  of  those  views 
of  religion  handed  down  to  us  by  the  teachers  of  Christianity.  He  has 
great  power  of  the  imagination — a  flaming  wit — and  has  said  a  great 
many  things,  not  wise,  but  by  which  wise  men  may  profit  He  has 
uttered  a  great  many  criticisms  on  the  subject  of  Christianity  which  are 
just  criticisms,  yet  taking  his  views  of  religion  as  a  whole,  they  lack 
completeness;  it  is  a  special  plea,  a  fault-finding  plea,  which  sees  only 
one  side.  Now,  while  I  accord  to  him  the  extremes!  liberty  of  discus- 
sion and  disclaim  any  right  to  interfere  with  this  liberty,  we  have  a  right 
to  whatever  of  instruction  there  may  be,  and  I  think  he  can  instruct  us 
hy  his  latest  utterance.  He  has  lost  a  brother  dearly  beloved,  a  good 
man  who  lived  happily  with  his  family  and  was  respected  by  the  com- 
munity, and  at  that  brother's  funeral,  Mr.  Ingersoll  made  one  of  the 
most  exquisite,  yet  one  of  the  most  sad  and  mournful,  sermons  that  I 
ever  read. 

"  Was  ever  anything  uttered  by  the  lips  of  man  more  pathetic  ?  But  wo 
have  not  only  a  hope,  we  have  the  certainty — we  know  that  if  our 


150  INGERSOLVS  FUNERAL  ORATION. 

earthy  tabernacle  is  lost  we  have  a  building  not  made  with  hands  eternal 
in  the  heavens.  To  us  the  sweet  voice  comes  under  burdens,  under  sor- 
rows, in  pain,  in  persecution,  in  the  prison  dungeon — ihe  voice  of  the 
spirit  and  the  bride  says  come  and  the  voice  of  the  whole  Church  of 
God  cries  out  to  us  'it  is  real,  it  is  real — come; '  and  when  this  noble 
brother  of  Mr.  Ingersoll  felt  the  touch  of  death,  I  don't  doubt  he  felt 
the  touch  of  God  the  second  time,  and  saw  in  the  eternal  world  things 
which  he  had  counted  but  shadows  here.  Even  skepticism  and  that 
which  had  been  provocative  of  skepticism  in  others  says  when  it  comes 
to  the  death  of  hope  :  '  In  spite  of  doubts  or  dogmas,  let  us  hope  that 
there  is  a  better  world.' " 


ARNOLD'S   COMMENTS. 


Hon.  Isaac  N.  Arnold's  Comments  on  Ingersoll's  Funeral 
Oration. 

The  sad,  pathetic,  and  almost  hopeless  cry  of  Robert  G.  Ingersoll 
over  the  grave  of  his  brother  has  been  widely  read.  It  is  eloquent  with 
feeling, and  shows  that  his  heart  is  tender  and  affectionate;  and  one  can 
not  but  sympathize  with  a  grief  which  is  not  soothed  by  any  hope  of  a 
reunion  hereafter.  He  says,  speaking  of  death:  "Whether  in  mid- 
sea  or  among  the  breakers  of  the  farther  shore,  a  wreck  must  mark 
at  last  the  end  of  each  and  all;  and  every  life  .  .  will  at  its  closo 
become  a  tragedy  as  sad,  and  deep,  and  dark  as  can  be  woven  of  tho 
warp  and  woof  of  mystery  and  death.  And  Life  is  a  narrow  vale 
between  the  cold  and  barren  peaks  of  two  eternities.  We  strive  in  vain 
to  look  beyond  the  hights.  We  cry  aloud,  and  the  only  answer  is  the 
echo  of  our  wailing  cry." 

This,  then,  is  the  despairing  moan  of  one  of  the  brightest  infidels  of 
our  country— of  one  who  is  doing  more  to  destroy  faith  in  God  and 
immortality  than  any  other!  How  striking  the  contrast  between  such 
a  "  wreck,"  as  Ingersoll  calls  it,  and  the  joyous,  hopeful  death  of  a 
Christian. 

I  have  lately  been  reading  an  account  of  the  last  hours  of  Sir  Walter 
Scott.  As  death  approached  this  great  and  healthy  minded  Scotchman, 
be  asked  Lockhart  to  read  to  him. 

"  What  shall  I  read?"  said  Lockhart. 

"Need  you  ask?"  said  Sir  Walter.  " There  is  but  one  Book."  And 
,thc  words  that  have  comforted  the  dying  and  soothed  the  living  for 
I  eighteen  hundred  years  fell  gratefully  upon  his  car: 

\     Let  not  your  heart  be  troubled.    In  my  Father's  house  arc  many  mansions.     I  go 
to  prepare  a  place  for  yon. 


ARNOLD'S  COMMENTS.  151 

«*  Lockhart,"  were  the  last  words  of  Scott,  "  Lockharl,  I  have  bur.  a 
moment  to  speak  to  you ;  ray  dear,  be  a  good  man ;  be  virtuous,  be 
religious!  Noihing  else  will  give  you  any  comfort  when  you  come  to 
lie  here." 

Ingcrsoll  sadly  says  over  the  remains  of  his  beloved  brother,  "We 
cry  aloud,  and  the  only  answer  is  the  echo  of  our  wailing  cry;"  and, 
speaking  of  his  dead  brother,  he  says:  "  He  climbed  the  hights,  and 
left  all  superstition  far  below." 

If  such  are  the  results  of  "climbing  the  hights;"  if  to  climb  is 
only  to  iook  into  the  black  gulf  of  despair,  to  hear  over  the  grave  only 
the  "  echoes  of  our  wailing  cry,"  who  would  not  rather  stay  in  the 
warm  valley  of  faith  and  hope? 

I  would  kindly  ask  Ingcrsoll,  Are  not  faith  and  hope  better  than 
doubt  and  despair?  And,  if  so,  why  make  it  your  life's  mission  to 
ridicule,  satirize,  and  destroy  the  faith  and  hope  of  the  thousands  who 
find  in  their  religion  the  only  refuge  from  the  sufferings  and  sorrows  of 
this  life?  Why  labor  to  make  your  brother  of  humanity  believe  that 

he  is  but — 

The  pilgrim  of  a  day? 

Spouse  of  the  worm  and  brother  of  the  clay, 
Frail  as  the  leaf  in  Autumn's  yellow  bower, 
Dust  in  the  wind,  or  dew  upon  the  flower? 
******* 

A  child  without  a  sire. 
Whose  mortal  life  and  transitory  flre 
Light  to  the  grave  his  chance-created  form, 
As  oceuu  wrecks  illuminate  the  storm. 

And  then — 

To  iiight  and  silence  sink  forevermorel 

If  these— 

The  pompons  teachings  ye  proclaim, 
Lights  of  the  world  and  domi-gods  ol  fame, 
The  laurel  wreath  that  murderer  rears, 
Blood  nursed  and  watt-red  by  the  widow's  tears, 
Seems  not  so  foul,  so  tainted,  and  so  dread, 
As  the  daily  mgbtt-hndc  round  the  skeptic's  head. 

Infidelity  is  indeed  the  "  deadly  nightshade,'  deadly  alike  to  happi- 
ness and  to  virtue.  There  are  exceptions  like  Ingersoll,  who  have 
inherited  irom  their  Christian  ancestors  natures  so  generous  that  their 
sturdy  vinues  have  resisted  the  deadly  influence. 

But  every  blow  this  modern  apostle  of  infidelity  strikes  against 
Christianiiy  is  a  blow  in  favor  of  vice  and  immorality.  To  the  young 
man  whose  faith  Ingersoll  by  his  wit  and  eloquence  has  shaken,  I  would 
ssiv,  listen  to  his  cry  of  despair  over  his  dead  brother,  and  compare  it 
with  the  Christian's  triumphant  death  and  joyous  hope,  and  choose  the 
truth. 


THE  AUDIPHONE, 


GOOD  NEWS  FOR  THE  DEAF. 


An  Instrument  that  enables  the  Deaf  to  Hear  with  Ease  through 

the  Medium  of  the  Teeth,  and  the  Deaf  and  Dumb 

to  Hear  and  Learn  to  Speak. 


INVENTED    BY    R.    S.    RHODES,    CHICAGO,    ILLS. 


The  Audi  phono  resembles  a  fan.  It  is  made  of  a  peculiar  composi- 
tion, that,  like  a  telephone  diaphragm,  gathers  the  faintest  sounds  and 
conveys  them,  through  the  medium  of  the  teeth  and 
auditory  nerve,  to  the  brain. 

When  in  use  the  instrument  is  strung,  or  bent,  to 
the  proper  tension  and  its  upper  edge  is  pressed 
against  tho  ed?e  of  the  upper  teeth.  See  Figs.  1, 2, 3. 


Fig.  j.  The  Audiphone 
in  its  natural  position; 
used  as  a  fan. 


Fig.  2.  The  Audiphone 
in  tension  ;  the  proper 
position  for  hearing. 


Fig.  3.  The  Audiphone 
properly  adjusted  10  the 
upper  teeth ;  ready  lor 
use.  (Side  view.) 


With  ordinarily  good  upper  teeth  and  auditory  nerve  the  Audiphone 
gives  good  satisfaction.  With  artificial  teeth,  if  they  fit  firmly,  it  gives 
good  results. 

Care  should  be  taken,  in  all  cases,  to  adjust  the  instrument  properly. 

Persons  not  accustomed  to  hearing  articulate  sounds,  or  who. 
by  the  use  of  car  trumpets,  have  become  accustomed  to  unnatural  sound, 
will  generally  require  a  little  practice  before  they  get  the  full  benefit  of 
the  instrument. 

In  all  cases  the  result  improves  as  the  instrument  is  used.  Its  use 
also  improves  the  natural  sense  of  hearing. 


3  THE  AUDIPHONE. 

FROM    PERSONS    USIXG    THE    AUDIPIIOXE. 

The  following  testimony  is  in  all  respects  authentic,  and  in  every 
instance  lias  come  to  Rhodes  &  McClure,  unsolicited.  The  same  is 
also  true  concerning  the  notices  "  From  the  Press." 


"  I  hear  ordinary  conversation  with  ease,  and  it  is  a  wonder  to  me  every  time  I  use  it. 
Sounds  that  1  had  not  heard  'or  years  and  had  quite  forg^tim  came  back  distinct. y,  and 
the  more  1  use  it  the  better  I  like  it.  "  ABBIE  R.  aTEVENS, 

"Oct.  9,  1879.  "  Salem,  Mass." 

"  I  atiend  church,  hear  perfectly  six  pews  from  the  desk,  and  can  not  hear  the  minis- 
ter's voice  without  the  Audi/>hone.  I  go  to  lectures  and  concerts,  and,  in  >h"rt.  am 
alive  again  and  a  part  of  the  world.  Sometimes  1  think  my  Audiphonr  is  hewiiched,  it 
works  so  well.  "  ABBIE.  R.  STEVENS." 

"i)ec.  13, 1879.     (Second  Letter.] 

"  The  Audiphone  came  O.  K.     By  its  aid  I  am  now  able  to  join  in  general  conversa- 
tion, which  I  have  not  been  ab:e  to  do  for  eighteen  years.  "  H.  K.    I'AYLOK, 
"  Nov.  21,  1879.  "  Cleveland,  O." 

u  The  "Phone  at  hand  ;  and  on  trial  even  more  satisfactory  than  could  be  experted  at 
first  use.  My  wife  and  friends  are  delighted  and  enth  siastic  over  it.  They  are  rejoiced 
that  I  can  hear,  and  1  am  glad  that  it  no  longer  requires  an  effort  on  their  part  to  eiuib.c 
me  to  do  so.  "  E.  C.  ELY  (firm,  Reynolds  &  Ely). 

"  Oct.  4,  1879.  "  Peoria,  Ills." 

"  114  South  T wen' y  First  Street,  Philadelphia.  Pa.,  Nov.  15. 

"  Messrs.  Rhodes  &  McC'ure. — The  Audiphone  arrived  safely,  and  I  hasten  10  assure 
you  of  its  perject  success  for  my  hearing.  In  ordinary  conversation  I  can  not  use  it 
against  th  eye-teeth  as  it  makes  the  voice-,  too  loud,  although  the  Audiphone  is  scarce  y 
drawn.  I  entered  into  general  conversa  ion  with  perfect  ease,  last  evening,  for  the  first 
time  for  five  or  six  years.  A  melodeon  or  piano  I  hear  distinctly  at  great  distances. 
Reading  aloud  is  also  easily  heard.  My  f.uni  y  and  friend-:  ar-  su  rejoiced  at  my  -uccess, 
and  regard  the  instrument  in  wonder.  My  physician  is  delighted  with  it,  and  thinks,  as 
my  deafness  arose  gre  itlv  from  nervousness,  that  the  Audiphone  will  stimul  te  the  audi- 
tory nerve,  and  possibly  benefit  or  restore  my  sense  of'heanng.  The  terrible  strain  being 
taken  from  my  mind  gives  me  such  re-t  and  good  spirits  that  I  almost  forget  my  deafness. 
"  Yours  very  truly,  "  MRS.  F.  A.  LEX." 

"Messrs.  Rhodes  &  McClure. — The  Audiphone.  per  Adams*  Express,  arrived  all  right, 
and  my  wife  is  delighted  with  it.     She  has  been  to  the  theater  and  other  public  entertain- 
ments, and  for  the  first  time  in  twelve  years  was  she  able  to  hear  all  that  was  >ai"d. 
"  Dec.  9,  1879.  "  H.  A.  BARRY,  26  Post  Office  Ave,,  Baltimore,  Md." 

"My  Audiphone  is  the  wonder  of  the  day.     It  helps  me  wonderfully  in  conversation, 

"B.  H.  MJLFORD,  ESQ.,  Montrose,  Pa." 

"  My  deafness  is  of  long  standing,  having  originated  from  an  attack  of  scarlet  fever 
more  than  thirty  years  ago.  The  hearing  in  each  e.ir  is  defective  and  in  one  almost  com-, 
pletely  impaired.  The  Audiphone  forwarded  has  been  tested  in  ordinary  conversation 
and  also  by  attendance  upon  the  opera  and  perfectly  subserves  the  purposes  for  which  it 
was  intended.  Nly  hearing  when  using  ihe  instrument  is  ;•$  acute  :<s  though  no  infirmity 
existed  and  ihc  effect  of  the  use  of  the  instrument  has  appreciably  toned  up  and  in, proved 
the  auditory  organs — so  much  so  as  to  have  attracted  the  attention  of  my  lam  ly. 

"  I  have  exhibited  the  instrument  10  several  friends  afflifted  wiih  deafness.  Anr>ng 
ihe  parties  who  have  determined  to  use  younovention  are  J  udge  MCI.  orkle.  of  Calif'Tiiia  ; 
Gen.  Boynton.  of  the  Cincinnati  Gazette  ;  and  General  Mai  ki.am,  a  resident  of  this  city. 
All  of  these  gentlemen  are  afflicted  with  defective  heating. 

"  G.  W.  CARTER. 
"  Nov.  28,  '879.  Washington,  D.  C. 

"  I  fiii-1  that  the  more  accustomed  I  become  to  the  use  of  my  Audiphone  the  better 

re*ul  t*  do  I  obtain,  and  having  been  quite  deaf  for  over  thirty  years  I  can  assure  you  it  ii 

•  Kr  :'t  gratification  to  be  able  to  attend  any  place  whe»e  public  speaking  is  goinu  on  and 

hear  all  th  it  is  uttered  by  the  speakers— a  pleasure  th.it  has  been  denied  me  nil  that  time, 

Nov.  a6. 18/9.  "JOHN  B.  SCOTT,  New  York." 


PERSONAL  TESTIMONY.  ft 

•*  It  answers  the  purpose  admirably.     Has  created  quite  a  sensation  among  my  friends. 
"Sept.  21,  1879.  "  E.  K.  TEST,  Claim  Agent,  U.  P.  R.  K.,"  Omaha,  Neb." 

"  Your  Audipheme  to  hand.  The  lady  (mv  sister)  has  tried  it  and  finds  she  can  hear 
now  .in  •  rdinai  y  couversalion  which  *he  can  not  do  without  it.  I  would  not  part  with  it  for 
ten  times  its  cost.  "W.  W.EVANS, 

"  hcpt  ,  1879.  "  Grant  Locomotive  Works,  Patcr.-on,  N.  J." 

"  I  procured  an  Audiphone  yesterday  and  can  already  hear  quite  well  an  ordinary  con- 
versation. "  HENRV  M1LNES,  Cold  Water,  Alien." 

"  Mu'ic  clear  in  any  part  of  the  room.  To  say  that  I  am  gratified  would  only  express 
moderately  hv,w  1  fed.  "  G.  H.  PAINE,  Freemout,  Neb.,  Sept.  30,  1879." 

"  The  Audiphone  is  a  great  benefit  to  me.     Without  it  music  is  a  confused  murmur 
of  sounds  ;  with  it  1  can  hear  ihe  different  parts  as  well  as  I  ever  c  >uKI. 
"  L»ec.  6,  1879.  "  ABBIE  WEST,  Canton.  Ills." 

"*  1  am  sati-fied  from  experiments  which  I  have  witnessed  that,  excepting  instances  in 
wnich  th':  Auditory  nerve  i>  totally  pjralyzed,  all  the  deaf  may,  by  its  help,  be  enabled  to 
hear  and  intelligently  converse.  "  REV.  S.  H.  WELLEK,  U.D.,  Morrison,  Ills." 

"  I  have  been  deaf  fjr  thirty  years,  but  can  now  hear  distinctly  with  the  Audiphone. 

"JOHN  ATKINSON, 
•*  Sept.  19,  1879.  "  Sec.,  Treas.  and  Sup't  Racine  (Wis.)  Gaslight  Co." 

"St.  Joseph's  Institute, 
"  Fordham,  (ne.tr  New  York  City,)  Dec.  4.  1879. 

"  On  Tuesday,  the  zd  inst.,  the  Audiphone  was  tested  by  a  number  of  pupils  of  the- 
Instiuite  with  the  following  results: 

"CtcilM  Lynch,  Hge-l  16.  is  supposed  to  have  been  deaf  from  birth.  It  has,  however, 
been  remarked  tr  at  she  en,  Id  he.tr  very  loud  sounds  and  could  sometimes  distinguish  her 
own  n  .111-  if  spoken  in  a  loud  tone  l.y  a  person  quite  close  to  her.  She  say-;  al-o  that 
she  -omi;  inies  lie. us  the  strains  of  (he  ori;aii  in  the  chapel,  but  so  far  from  deriving  any 
pleasure  from  tl  e  music  the  confuted  sounds  are  very  di  agieeable  to  her.  By  the  use  of 
the  Auoiphone  she  not  only  heard  distinctly  but  could  repeat  almost  every  word  spoken 
to  her.  A>  she  ha- been  instructed  in  articulation  and  reads  easily  from  the  lips  it  was 
thought  that  this  knowledge  a>si»ted  her.  One  of  the  persons  present  then  stood  behind 
her  ai  d  icpe.ucd  sevrral  words  which  she  readily  imitated,  thus  proving,  beyond  a  doubt, 
the  value  of  the  Audiphone. 

"  Annie  I'oohey,  ;<ged  10  years,  became  deaf  at  the  age  of  three  from  spinal  meningitis. 
It  was  supposed  that  her  hearing  was  completely  destroyed,  but  on  applying  the  Audiphone 
to  her  teeth  -he  I  card  and  distinctly  tepeated  after  Mr.  Rhodes  several  of  the  letters  of  the 
alphabet.  Thi-  little  girl  has  begun  to  m»ke  considerable  progress  in  articulation,  but  up 
to  Ihe  d.iy  on  wh-ch  she  tr  ed  the  Audiphon  •.  the  vowel  K  appeared  to  be  an  insurmount- 
able difficulty  to  her  ;  by  the  aid  of  ihe  Audiphone  she  repeated  it  with  perfect  distinci  ness. 

"  Another  little  girl,  Sarah  Hejnrning,  also  heard  the  xoice  of  Mr.  Rhodes  and  others 
irho  sp  kr  to  her.  As  in  the  preceding  ca^e,  her  deafness  was  caused  by  spinal  menin- 
f  itU.  by  which  she  was  attacked  when  five  years  of  age.  By  the  aid  ol  the  Audiphone 
she  was  ;«blw  to  lepeat  several  sounds. 

"Several  others  tested  the  Audiphone  with  more  or  less  success. 

"MARY  U.  MORGAN,  Principal." 

In  a  later  le'ter 'Dec.  12)  Miss  Morgan  states:  "No  doubt  the  Audiphone  will  be  of 
great  service  to  our  pjpiU." 

"  Western  and  Atlantic  R.  Co.  Office  Treasurer. 

"  Atlanta.  Ga.,  Nov.  18,  '879. 

"  Messrs.  Rhodes  &  Mcrlure. — Will  you  please  send  me  a  Conversational  Audiphone 
by  Express  C.  O.  D.,  the  price  of  which  is  $  10.  as  per  advertisement. 

"  Very  respectfully, 

"  W.  C.  MF.RRIi.L,  bee.  and  Treas.  W.  &  A.  R.  Co." 

"  Please  send  me  another  Conversational  Audiphone  by  Express." — (Telegram  from 
W.  C  Merrill,  Nov.  24,  1879.) 

"  Please  send  me  Concert  Audiphone  by  Express." — (Telegram  from  same,  Dtc.  9  ) 
"    lease  send  me  Conver  ational  Audiphone  bv  Express."— (T-  l-gram  from  same.  De- 
cemb.  r  12.}     |     .K.— Mr.  Merrill  is  not  an  agent.     He  purchased  these  Audiphones,  per 
telegram,  for  friends  who  had  seen  hi-,  instrument.] 

'*  R  S  T?h"des.  Fsq.— Dear  Sir.— 1  avail  myse'f  of  this  opportunity  to  tender  to  you  my 
best  wishes  for  the  success  of  your  philanthropic  invention. 

"Yours,  "JAMF.S  J.  BARCLAY. 

"  Dec.  9,  1879.  "  Sec.  Penn.  Institute  for  Deaf  and  Dumb,  Philadelphia." 


FROM  THE  PRESS.  6 

'  Seems  to  discount  any  of  the  instruments  invented  by  Edison  to  aid  the  hearing." — 
Jfeiv  Orleans  Times.  Nov.  27,  1879. 

"  The  invention  will  have  practical  value." — New  York  Herald. 

**  It  is  all  the  inventor  claims  it  to  be."     Evansville  (Jnd.)  Journal.     Nov.  30, 1879. 

"  The  Trial  was  an  eminent  success." — Boston  Traveler.     Dec.  2,  1879. 

"  It  has  been  tested  with  rem  irknble  results  in  the  Indiana  Institute  for  the  Deaf." — 
Dr.  Footes  Health  Monthly.  December,  1879. 

"The  Andiphone,  for  the  deaf,  is  like'y  to  supersede  the  ear  trumpet  altogether;  is 
not  at  all  objectionable  to  carry  or  to  use,  and-enables  thousands  who  never  heard  a  <-ound 
in  their  lives  to  extinguish  letters,  words  and  music  for  the  first  time." — Church  Union. 
Novell. ber  29,  1879. 

"  Immense  value  for  the  deaf." — The  Faderneslandet.    Sept.,  1879. 

"The  deaf,  who  had  only  heard  conversation  bj'  its  being  shouted  in  a  very  loud  tone 
or  by  the  use  of  the  ear  trumpet,  found  that  they  could  hear  conversa  ion  in  the  ordinary 
tone  wi'h  considerable  ease." — Providence  {R.  1.)  Journal  Report  of  Experiments  in 
Providence^  R.  I. 

"  Has  proved  a  signal  success." — Albany  (IV.  Y.)  Press. 

"  Would  be  easily  mistaken  for  a  fan." — Democrat  and  Chronicle. 

"  In  many  cases  of  deafness,  where  the  auditory  nerve  istim  paired,  the  Audiphnne  can 
be  of  no  avail  ;  but  where,  as  is  often  the  case,  the  defect  is  only  in  those  parts  »f  the  e  .r 
by  which  vibrations  are  conveyed  to  the  nerve  from  without,  this  invention  will  prove  a 
great  boon." — Washington  (D  C.)  Post.  Oct.  27,  1879. 

"  Will  practically  restore  to  speech  and  hearing  a  large  class  of  afflicted  persons." — 
Toronto  (Canada)  Mail.  Dec.  5.  1879. 

"  Great  benefit  to  those  partially  deaf." — Providence  (R.  7.)  Journal.    Nov  6,  1879. 

"  Earlier  reports  are  fully  borne  out  by  later  experiments." — Denver  Times.  Decem- 
ber 6,  1879. 

"  Mr  Rhodes  was  warmly  congratulated  by  the  company,  and  Mr.  Peter  CoopT  spoke 
•of  his  invention  as  a  blessing  and  :i  godsend  to  the  afflicted." — Correspondents  Report  o/ 
New  York  Exhibition*  in  Chicago  Inter-Ocean.  Nov.  29. 

"  A  new  and  ingenious  device  by  which  the  deaf  are  enabled  to  hear  through  the 
medium  of  the  teeth." — New  York  Graphic.  Nov.  ai.  1879. 

"One  of  the  wonders  of  this  day  of  telephones,  phonographs  and  the  like,  is  the 
Audiphone,  invented  by  Richard  S.  Rhodes,  of  Chicago,  which  enjblrs  deaf  p  ople  to 
bear  with  their  teeth.  People  who  have  once  heard,  but  have  grown  deaf,  and  thus  know 
the  meaning  of  sounds  and  can  talk  th»rn-elves,  p  acti  ;illy  hive  perfect  hearing  restored 
by  the  use  of  the  Audiphone." — Springfield  Republican. 

"  Had  it  in  our  possession  not  more  than  two  minutes  before  we  were  satisfied  that  it 
was  at  least  all  that  we  anticipated,  bur  have  since  found  it  to  be  much  superior  to  antici- 
pations. Besides,  we 'find  it  to  impiove  by  use, also  to  improve  our  n:itun,l  hearing,  which 
is  remarkable." — Editor  Germantown  Telegraph^  Philadelphia,  Nov.  26,  1879. 

"  With  a  little  practice  the  sounds  thus  received  are  interpreted  the  same  as  if  they 
reached  the  nerves  of  hearing  through  the  tar.  ' — Scientific  American. 


The  Audiphone  is  Patented  throughout  the  civilized  world. 


I>  IR  I  O  E: 
Conversational,  plain $10 

Conversational,  ornamental $16,  $25  and  $50 

(According  to  Decoration.) 
Double  Audiphone  (for  Deaf  Mutes, enabling  them  to  hear  their  own  voice)  $  1 5 

The  Audiphone  will  be  sent  to  any  address,  on  receipt  of  price,  by 

RHODES   &    McCLURE, 

Agents  for  the  World, 

Methodist  Church  Block,  CHICAGO,   ILL. 

(Andlphoue    Parlors,  Adjacent   to   tho   Office.) 


POPULAR  BOOKS  PUBLISHED  BY  RHODES  &  MCCLDRB 


TENTH    THOUSAND, 
ii 


EDISON  AND  HIS  INVENTIONS: 

*  vo.f  17 S  pages.    Illustrated. 


EDITED  BY  J.  B.  McCLURE. 


Trice  in  Cloth,  fine,  $1.00,  Paper  (overs,  50  els. 

Tliis  book  contains  the  many  interesting  incidents,  and  all  ihe  essen- 
tial facts,  connected  with  the  life  of  the  great  inventor,  together  with  a  lull 
explanation  of  his  principal  inventions,  including  the  phonograph,  tele- 
phone, aiid  electric  light,  which  are  explained  by  the  aid  of  diagrams. 


OPINIONS  OF  THE  PRESS. 

"  FrliK'm  find  II  »  liirei'tinns"  is  one  of  tiie  larest  and  most  entertaining  bo">ks 
that  ha<  b-eii  laid  n  our  table.  A  glance  at  the  titl^-pag-!  as  n res  us  that  the  book 
rannoi  :ail  10  be  Interesting  when  we  ee  that  it  has  been  compiled  by  Mr.  J.  B. 
M.  ciiir-.  of  ihe  well  kn  iwu  (inn  of  Khndes  &  McClure.  Mr.  McOlure  has  spent 
nioi.ths  in  oorresfiondo  ice  \viili  parties  wno  were  acquainted  with  Kdisuii  In  his 
bo  h.>od  days,  mill  nl-o  wi.h  ilio  parents  of  the  great  inventor,  who  have  fur- 
iiislie<l  numerous  amiKing  anecdote*  wn  ch  liave  not  as  yet  been  iua  e  public. 
The  tasimeter.  phonograph,  telep  .one,  and  all  his  inventions,  are  illu-tra'ed,  and 
the  '  i-tniN  explained  iu  t>uch  a  uianuer  that  they  cuu  be  understood  by  every 
one.—  The  Inl<  ri,,r. 

"  If  Mr  Kilis  n's  h<>ad  is  not  turned  by  his  numerous  successes  In  wonderful 
discovery  and  invention,  he  mu  t  !!*•  e  a  leVel  head.  Just  as  the  announcement 
nnives.  that  ihe  electric  light  is  to  be  tested  in  the  ('ap't')l  at  Washington,  a  book 
Is  In'd  on  our  table,  entitled  "  Kd  son  and  his  Inventions,'1  which,  as  the  title 
implies,  rela  es  in  the  in, in  as  wed  as  his  work.  It  gives  many  interesting  anec- 
dotes or  this  odd  genius  with  lull  expl  millions  of  the  telephone,  phonograph, 
tasiin  t'T  and  la-t.  and  i«er  ar>s  most  im:>  irtaiit  of  all,  the  results  of  his  electric 
light  riiinipli.  Nirner  .ii*  cms  make  ii  •  omnar  lively  easy  for  e.en  the  unscien- 
tiiic  lo  understand  the  desenp.ive  parts." — Editorial  in  the  Advance. 

••This-  volume  of  Mr.  McClur/s  is  one  that  will  interest  every  reader.  It  Is  a 
priip  ic  sketi-h  of  the  incide  ts,  anecclotes  a:id  into  esting  partic-ular.s  of  his  life, 
lie  -i.e-  a  eleir  and  conci-e  ex:.lan  Uion  of  the  telephone,  phonograph,  and 
many  others  of  the  leading  d  seoveries.  The  volume  has  many  illustrations. 
>  ot  on  I  ih'i-e  older  will  rend  ii  with  interest  but  it  is  a  book  full  of  valuable 
in<triiciiou  to  tlu  young,  for  its  facts  and  lor  its  suggestive  thoughts." — T/te  Inter- 
Ocean. 

"There  en  n  be  no  donlit  that  Kdison  is  a  r-markabln  man.  He  has  already 
accomplished  nvre  in  the  IVMJT  of  Invenilon.thati  any  man  u^on  record,  at  so 
e;irlv  an  age— -thirty-two.  His"  career  has  been  full  of  adventure,  of  a  certain 
ki'id.  and  the  -lory"  f  il  is  exceedingly  i  .tere.-tiiis:.  Mr.  McClure  has  gathen;.! 
liis  iiniieri  il  with  great  industry,  and  so  i  sed  it  as  to  make  a  \vy  readaule.  book. 
An  ex  el.ent  dea  is  given  UHh'ol  the  man  and  ot  his  work."— Tlte  Standard. 

-  Mr  McClur  h  >s  done  a  -jo  d  th  ng  In  bringing  together  so  much  authentic 
Infonna  Uci  Unit  relate*  to  the  man  and  hi*  work.  Ii  is  the  storv  of  the  patient 
ov  Int.  in  of  e  mine  talent  its  dise  mriiwmenti  and  trin  ,.phs.  with  enough  of 
personality  to  give  additional  zjsl  to  the  narrativ  ;." — Chicago  Evening  Journal. 

"('resents  n  an  I-  t-rr-ating  manner  (he  account  of  the  life  of  the  gieatest 
Invenlo;'  of  the  present  lime." — Sorlliwestern  Christian  Advocate. 

Sent  by  inu.it,  post  t-nld,  o»  rccrit>t  of  -prlc~  by  tho 
Liberal  discount  to  tUe  Trade. 


3> 


THIS  BOOK  IS  DUE  ON  THE  LAST  DATE 
STAMPED  BELOW. 


S.TII',    'I   I-'J 


